Giving us a break,....or not? What to do on abortion.
He agreed, but then paused and noted "yes, but if it's brought right back with rape and incest exceptions spelled out, that takes the wind out of the sails of those who campaigned on the assertion that it had none."
The Associated Press in the Rapid City Journal also takes on the topic this morning as well:
So, some are saying "NO," don't bring it back, and yet others are saying o.k., let's bring it back with the critic's arguments answered. Not that I think there's any chance of Stan Adelstein jumping on board the side of the group to limit abortions while holding on to his Planned Parenthood award (because on several occasions he plainly stated it he had a problem with it because it didn't have exceptions).A bill providing exceptions for rape, incest and a pregnant woman’s health is a possibility, said state Sen. Garry Moore of Yankton, who won a seat in the state House in Tuesday’s election.
Approval of such a measure might not end in another statewide vote because opponents might not be able to get enough signatures to refer it to the ballot, Moore said.and...
It’s premature to speculate on new legislation, said state Rep. Kathy Miles, D-Sioux Falls, an abortion-ban supporter.
“I don’t think the issue will ever go away,” Miles said. “We created an awareness for people that was not there before, and we need that revitalization and that passion to continue.”and...
State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, said recent polls indicated South Dakotans would have approved a ban with exceptions. That means voters want to end “abortion on demand,” he said.
“Last night, we settled the issue that the people of South Dakota want rape, incest and health of the mother exceptions,” he said Wednesday. “We should move ahead; that appears that’s what the polls say we should do.”
Napoli said he would vote for such a ban but would not introduce one.
Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, opposed the abortion ban because it was too restrictive. He said he wouldn’t be surprised to see a ban with exceptions introduced.
“I could see rape and incest (exceptions) and then having a huge fight over the word ‘health,’” Olson said.
It would be interesting to see it come back simply for the political theater it would cause as those politicians who publicly hung their rejection of the measure on the exception clauses would now find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
After this election, I'd personally like to see Republicans spending a couple of years focusing on issues that put us on the map - less government, lower taxes, personal rights - because losing that focus is what hurt Republicans locally and nationally and those are issues we can reforge a coalition on.
Am I going to get my wish? Probably not.
Comments
Bring back the bloody fetus trucks and the goon squads. Bring back the whacky doctor ex-abortionist with the flat affect that weirds us out. Bring back Leslee with her Jack Nicholson-Joker grins lighting up my widescreen tv. Bring back the sacred children, Jesus and Vote God's Values signs. Bring back block after block of nauseating, sanctimonious vote Yes signs. Bring back the churches and holier-than-thou schools with crosses and signs in their laws, defying the separation between church and state in your face. Bring back the throngs of non-residents carrying oversized posters of fetus porn because we just didn't see enough of it. Bring back the hundreds of letters to the editor twisting the hell out of the Bible to justify the narrow interpretation. Bring back the full frontal barrage of who and what the Right to Life is and please prove all over again just how crazed and cult-like the movement truly has become.
Please bring us more of Roger Hunt's secret mega-donor activities.
The near total ban should have passed a vote of the people by a narrow margin because the vote no folks didn't have a fraction of sufficient resources to win, even though the lack of critical exemptions gave them a lay up. Despite all that, the vote Yes group absolutely went over the top and talked themselves into a 12-point margin of defeat with a massive voter turnout and extreme expenditure of resources.
I think the Vote Yes and Leslee have done for themselves what Democrats did for themselves with a fair and balanced tax issue back in the 70s. The issue is poison because of the extremism, which makes it unsellable to the folks who don't view themselves as polarized on one side or the other on reproductive issues. Most folks just are not knowingly going to give power to extremists.
With numbers like that, the opposition would have to work harder to get signatures to put it in the ballot. The "yes" side could reference all the "no" campaign's advertising - can't call it extreme anymore. All those legislators who said they would vote for it if it contatined the exceptions don't have room to move and you also lost a couple of 1215 "no" votes in the House. SDRTL can't demure. I would think the only question would be this year or next year.
The zealots don't get it. People do not want government involved in their personal issues. People want less extremism, not more.
I suspect, from my work with the No side, that a group opposing a ban with exceptions would have different leaders.
The Yes side would also be answerable for some of the statements they made this year. Should a ban with exceptions come through, they would have to answer for their strong and unwavering belief this year that all embryos are sacred, regardless of how they were conceived. This hypothetical ban proves that they don't really believe that.
The Yes position would be stopping 96% of abortions in SD is betten than 0%.
What's the No argument? We just voted on this?
Isn't it amazing that people can overlook the many fiscal and social problems in our nation and instead zero in on personal issues?
Isn't it amazing that people use their interpretations of the Bible as an excuse to try and dominate a nation that guarantees Freedom of Religion?
Isn't it amazing that the people who preach about morals will twist the truth and try to skirt the law in order to win?
Isn't it amazing that the side that had the most resources in both money and volunteers only pulled in 44 percent of the votes?
Isn't it amazing that the majority of South Dakotans had the good sense to vote down the ban?
In the meantime, education, health care, taxes, and the budget problems are ignored.
Jeebus. When are we going to learn?
I am going to say it. Since the Dem side always states "no one likes abortion" why can't we come together and do away with the "for any reason" abortions? Is this not a doable idea! No matter which side "party" you are with why can't we tackle the issue and find common ground!
So can't we work on making sure there is decent sex ed in the schools? I understand that there is lots of disagreement on this issue, but I would think that those who are pro-life would prefer sex ed to abortion.
Last year, there was a proposal to make birth control pills covered under health insurance - and it was shot down by proponents of the ban. Affordable birth control is also a good way to help prevent unplanned pregnancy.
I would also like to see other economic issues addressed that could make it more likely for women to continue their pregnancies: the cost of health care and child care, the food tax, the minimum wage. All of these could have an impact.
I sure would rather focus my efforts on these things and actually reducing abortions than on wasting time and money fighting with Roger Hunt for another year and making no strides toward preventing unwanted pregnancies.
~climbing down off my soap box~
"While South Dakotans fought valiantly to defend their babies, we once again witnessed an almost total lack of support from the national leadership," Euteneuer said.
Well said Rev. Euteneuer. And I guess by now all of us know how Rev. Dobson felt about Senator Thune not showing up when help was needed!
Well, we fought our heart and souls out trying to stop abortions and we just about did it! And Rev. Euteneuer is correct! Where were our National and State Republican leaders?
Let’s see now, Senator Thune was down south somewhere raising money and votes for a fellow Republican, and I guess that person lost the election anyway, just like Referred law 6 lost. Governor Rounds was crossing the state just smiling and shaking hands. But wait a minute, they did put out a full page ad in the major newspapers stating that they were against abortions. Well, I guess that’s better then nothing, sort of!
I want our legislators to again pass a law stopping all abortions! And the next time it will pass if it is put to the vote of the people. Simply because our Republican Governor and Republican Senator will be out there helping us the next time. Mark my word, we will make sure of that!!!
President Bush didn't support the South Dakota abortion ban because he believes in exceptions for rape and incest. He has stated that in the past.
Sen. Thune prefers the exceptions too, plus he's not interested in committing political suicide.
That's because you didn't almost win. 49 percent could be considered almost winning; 44 percent is a spread that told you the majority of South Dakotans did not approve of HB1215.
Maybe you can kidnap the senator and governor next time and force them to support your cause - just like you want to force all pregnant women to do what you want.
You can tell Rev. Euteneur that those "babies" are undeveloped embryos that belong to the women who host it in their wombs - and not to the state of South Dakota.
And while you're at it, remind him that the voters have spoken.
They said NO!
The Catholic Church has total opposition to the use of condoms!
Good Catholics do not use condoms!
Any legislator that promotes the use of condoms will have a huge fight with the Catholics in South Dakota!
So you know; there are about 6 different areas/groups of Feminist now days, not just the 1 or the bras burners!!! Some are really out there and some are a little more grounded.
But since these were the main and most vociferously expressed reasons that the NO people cited, they should now be satisfied and should not object.
It would be passed with a modicum of argument, and then the legislature could get on with other business.
And no, that doesn't mean that the YES people would be completely satisfied either, but preventing 90% or so of the abortions which are done for convenience or on demand is better than preventing 0%, as stated by a previous poster here.
Do I believe that the NO people would go for this idea? Dream on! Of course not. Because they want all abortions, and PP wants the revenue from them, and they will continue to oppose any restrictions on abortion on demand.
They forget that the issue is simply LIFE - protecting the first nine months of a LIFE.
I must have missed something, I thought there were exceptions in the bill.
"those "babies" are undeveloped embryos that belong to the women who host it in their wombs"
So you subscribe to the belief that conceived humans are property that can be experimented on, bought, sold, and exterminated at will or whim--not persons worthy of respect and life.
So when exactly to they switch over from property to persons? The DNA does not change --if left alone they will simply continue to grow into what they already are.
Was it OK for our laws to declare that the "negro race is 3/5th persons" for 50 years of our history? And would you have owned one since they were legally not a person and were a cheap housecleaner?
With the make up of the US Congress now, getting another judge seated that would overturn Roe V Wade will be very difficult.
It would be risky to get something ready to be heard by the Supreme Court without having a Supreme Court that will rule unbiasly.
We need to get rid of a few of the judges that don't understand the principles that our nation was founded on and think that the constitution is something that they have the power to change on their own whim.
If it did, though, there's no way it would get referred again. PP or the ACLU would take it straight to court and it would fade from popular conscienceness just like the many other pointless, unconstitutional abortion-related bills that have been passed in the last few years. Ask someone on the street if they know about the informed consent measure or the trigger law. What people will remember is this election and the representatives that couldn't get their mind off of abortion long enough to create jobs or fix education. It's a lose lose lose issue.
What is the legislature supposed to do that it was prevented from doing because allegedly so much of the legislature's time was taken up purusing the abortion bill?
Over the past few weeks the mantra recounted in my first paragraph has become an implied code phrase/combo of phrases to suggest that there is somehow a mandate for abandoning the abortion issue completely.
The man who signed the abortion ban won relection by a landslide. Supporters of the abortion ban in both houses handily won re-election and conservatives retained majorities in both houses of the SD legislature. Further a strong majority of South Dakotans support a ban with exceptions.
Whether or not such a bill would escape the collective conciousness of the public is irrelevant. The safe haven law and a myriad of tax and appropration issues have also surely escaped the minds of voters as well. Or how about Jan Nicolay's extremist efforts to require mandatory vasectomey's?
As for the informed consent law, it's hung in litiation in the 8th circuit right now and will probably get to the Supreme Court someday. The point of legislation at the state level regarding abortion also counts when SCOTUS takes up every abortion issue because its one more weight on the scale of justice towards brinning the issue back to the states
Moderates and Demos are acutally the big loosers in this election. Here's why: conserviatives in SD will now feel more epowered to pursue a even more conservative agenda at the state and national levels. You know: the whole get back to Reagan thing.
... I'm just sayin'....
For those complaining about the legislature's lack of attention paid to other issues read this and then cry like a boby:
1) In 2006 the SD legislature passed and the governor signed 271 bills.
2) 2 of the 271 bills that became law were about abortion.
3) Debate over abortion lasted less than 3 hours in taped SDPB audo time.
4) Debate over insurance regulation and law went for over six hours.
5) More sponsors added their names to bills dealing with insurance regulation, fiduciaries and trusts and agency then to abortion.
See: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/sesslaws/TableContents.htm for details.
Point being that all of the people who thinks too much time is being spent on abortion are too afraid to say they disagree with it so they say too much time, blah blah, blah.
Anyway more time was spent on all the key issues people want addressed. However, liberals and dems and moderate republicans are mad because they can't get the majority of the legislature to agree with them so they blame abortion.
To all you moderate Republicans and liberals quit using the "abortion is sucking all of the oxygent out of the room" argument to support you lame agenda that most South Dakotas refuse to support.
What about the merits of all the issues that have been listed here today? We'll see...
Let it go. We are all tired of the tirades from both Leslee and Kate.
The claim has been brought up by the mostly oppoonents of abortion and the squishy moderates that abortion has taken the spotlight off them.
to which the reply is that well mabye in the newspapers that is the case but in the working world of the legislature that is just not the case given the facts and empirical data. See above post.
What this is about is the moderates and dems clawing and scratching for issues they can shine on without having to take on an issue to which conservatives shine on and really have somewhat of a safe harbor with.
Further, dems and moderates in the legislature have to turn the agenda to something else in order to gain street cred with voters so they can trumpet themselves in the next election.
would not fly.
You cannot deny a certain group of human beings their rights based on the circumstances which brought about their existance (Being black? They happen to be conceived as a result of rape?)
The 14th Amendment of the US constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
Most certainly earlier than 24 weeks right, as proposed in Rote?
I believe this issue has caused several people (men and women) to leave the party. I may be one of them. Seeing Leslee Unruh's 'performance' on election night nearly sealed the deal for me...do we want to lose every single woman who is in her childbearing years?
Let's move on to other issues and let each person make their own decisions in these very difficult circumstances, whatever they may be.
Abortion is the purposeful ending of a life.
And to answer another poster's comment about exceptions. There were exceptions in HB1215, maybe not the best or the ones the pro-abort people wanted, but there were exceptions.
And I don't buy the argument that the people have spoken and now the majority approve of abortion and we should forget about it. Most people do not approve of abortion on demand.
Someone said it earlier, don't kill a baby unless, unless, unless. I say if you believe what you believe it's murder 1, pure and simple-for the mother, the doctor, nurse, father, etc. etc.
I have also said that I would support an abortion ban with the much touted exceptions of rape/incest and health of the mother. It would thus allow most of the present aborted babies a chance to live. Most is better than none.
I have said before that I would support a bill that has exceptions for rape and incest and health of the mother, but there would have to be stipulations such that these reasons could not be used as the excuse for every abortion on demand. Saving most lives is better than saving none, as at present.
And I believe that such a bill would pass. Of course PP would still not like it because it would impact their revenue stream.
But other women who don't want a baby, for instance someone whose birth control failed and who cannot stretch the family income to cover one more child, cannot abort an embryo?
Either way is killing a baby according to your standards. So why is one way acceptable and not the other?
I honestly had not considered in vitro before. However, I thought that most usable embryos were implanted as usually some do not make it to birth.
I guess part of my objection to abortion is abortion on demand with definite intent to kill the baby a woman is carrying. It cheapens life. What's next? Saying an old, ill person's life is of no value and must be euthanized? Or a mentally disabled baby should be euthanized because it would be a burden on society? Abortion on demand is the first step in cheapening life.