And the next ban will really have exceptions

KELO is reporting tonight that the next attempt to ban abortion in South Dakota will really contain exceptions for rape and incest.

Despite the fact that whether it did or not in 2006 was the major point of debate in the campaign.
Republican state Senator Brock Greenfield of Clark says failure to get South Dakota voters to ratify last year's ban, which contained no exceptions for rape or incest victims, means abortion opponents need to look at political reality. He says exceptions likely will be included when the time is right to bring back anti-abortion legislation.

Retiring state Senator Lee Schoenbeck, a Watertown Republican, says abortion opponents need to respect the fatigue caused by battles such as the fight over the abortion ban last year.
Read it all here.

It should be noted that as the State Director for South Dakota Right to Life, Brock represents an organization that traditionally has preferred a chipping away of abortion law incrementally. And given the vote this year, it's possible that the answer to passing the measure lies somewhere between gradual incrementalism and a wholesale ban.

I'm of the camp that you may see a measure with better defined provisions for rape and incest. If there are provisions for the health of the mother, those will likely be narrowly defined.

Don't care for that view in my crystal ball? Sorry, but you need to look at the numbers. Accepting the anti-6 people's view that the measure contained no R/I provisions, a total ban measure only failed 45-55%.

Imagine if the provisions were well defined and laid out. There might have been a vastly different outcome.

Think we're done with it? Talk to me after the ballot is set for 2008.

Comments

Todd Epp said…
Pat:

What's the deal? You, Leslee, and Roger can't take "no" for an answer?

Good grief. Give the abortion ban a rest for a session or two and concentrate on issues that will move the state forward.

Your friend Brock seems to have gotten that message.

Todd Epp
SD Watch
http://thunewatch.squarespace.com
Elephant's Memory said…
I thought these knuckleheads swore on a stack of Bibles that their precious HB 1215 had exceptions for rape and incest. Now these liars say there weren't exceptions, but now they'll find some.

How can you tell if they're lying? Answer: They're lips are moving.

It's kind of like listening to lawyer Roger Hunt tell us that his last abortion ban was legal. He has a habit of interpreting laws very liberally.

These people are NOT conservatives. They want government micro-management in your bedrooms. They are the worst kind of hypocritical, liberal freaks! Violating the law means nothing to them, getting caught is all that matters.

By the way, when is Roger "Con Man" Hunt going to the Big House for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy? What's taking Larry so Looooooooong?
PP said…
Todd -

Where did I get involved in all of it? I'm just predicting. You might not want it to happen, but I don't think that's going to prevent it.
bill fleming said…
Yes, there would have probably have been a vastly different outcome, PP.

First, the law would probably have not been referred to the voters and placed on the ballot.

Instead would be in legal limbo right now, working its way through a series of defeats and appeals in the court system, doomed to being declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

And instead of our trying to find out who Roger Hunt's donor to the election campaign was, we'd be trying to find out who was picking up the State's legal tab instead.
nonnie said…
I hope it comes back with the exceptions for rape/incest MORE clearly defined. Since that is the main reason Planned Parenthood et al opposed last year's bill, I can't wait to see their reasoning if this is the proposed bill.

And the majority of people in SD I believe do NOT want abortion on demand. HB 1215 was defeated because it was felt to be too strict, not because people are in favor of abortion. So let's give it a try again.

If Planned Parenthood is honest, they won't oppose such a bill. But of course, they aren't and they will.

And give it a rest with Hunt. Unless you want to demand the same of Forward SD and all other PAC's involved in last year's election process.
bill fleming said…
Yes, Forward South Dakota should disclose also. They all should.

It's probably possible to write a bill that South Dakotans could support and that would not be unconstitutional so it didn't have to be challenged in court. The problem is, nobody seems to want to.

The court challenge was the whole point! The legislators wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
scimitar said…
Of course it's not about banning abortion. It's only about creating an issue in even numbered (election) years.

The Matt McCaulley ban bill was in 2004 - vetoed by Rounds.

In 2005, Sen. Kloucek brought the bill back and fixed it to address Rounds' exceptions, BUT THE REPUBLICANS KILLED IT. Who cares about those babies - it's not an election year?

Back with the Hunt ban bill in 2006. And now, people like Schoenbeck are: 1) lying by saying that the 2004 bill didn't come back in 2005 (trying to get you to forget that they didn't care about the issue in 2005); and 2) urging people to wait until the next election year - 2008.

It's like the fire department taking every other year off. If lives are at stake, as the argument goes, why aren't they trying to put out the fire in odd-numbered years?

In 2007, we will see if it's really about making abortions more rare, or if it's just an issue to ride in election years.
VJ said…
Your right Nonnie

So let's give it a try again.
Anonymous said…
When did Planned Parenthood ever say they were opposed to 6 just because it didn't have exceptions. In fact, when did Planned Parenthood say much of anything during this election?

The Campaign for Healthy Families may have used that line, but they don't represent Planned Parenthood or pro-choice people in general. No pro-choice person ever said they were against 6 because of the exceptions issue.
Anonymous said…
11:07: Wha-a-a-a-t?????? What planet did you just land from?
Anonymous said…
moving the state forward equals banning abortion. \Abortion is neanderthalian.
Anonymous said…
moving the state forward equals banning abortion. Abortion is neanderthalian.
Anonymous said…
Adding exceptions for rape and incest is not as easy as it sounds. Who is going to act as judge and jury in determining if a rape occured? Rape is the most under reported crime in this country. I have thought about this issue many times in my life- in college when one of my roommates was raped, when I myself was the victim of date rape, and as a voter in the last election cycle. There are grey areas in this issue, there are circumstances that you can't expalin to yourself, let alone a judge and jury. Please leave this issue to the victims, their families, and their medical providers.
nonnie said…
You are right that adding exceptions for rape and incest is not a simple easy issue. That is one of the reasons it wasn't added to the last bill.

And that led to Planned Parenthood (yes, PP in the form of Looby was very vocal against HB 1215) and all pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion)people to use this as their most important reason to oppose that bill. This even though rape/incest accounted for less than 2% of all SD abortions, which PP et al never mentioned in their commercials.

I still believe that most people in SD oppose abortion on demand and will support a less strict new bill on abortion. Many, many voters stated these exact words last time around.

I would really like to hear Looby's spin on a new bill including rape and incest. She would of course find another reason to oppose it, but I'd love to hear her reasoning.
scimitar said…
How about this, Nonnie? We already have the most restrictive abortion laws that the US Supreme Court will allow. Any additional restrictions will be struck down as unconstitutional just as HB 1215 would have been.

How many times are we going to subject the taxpayers to paying for attorneys on both sides of unsuccessful lawsuits that we know are doomed from the outset?

Just before the election there was a little noticed news report. Roger Hunt's most recent abortion bill (before 1215) was struck down by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (1 step below the Supreme Court). That bill was to force doctors to provide additional specified information prior to an abortion.

The fact is, Roger Hunt has socked the taxpayers TWICE with big legal bills, once in the 1990's and again this year. If HB 1215 had been approved by voters, it would have been the 3rd time the taxpayers would have been Giuliani'd with legal bills for a doomed effort.

Time to let some other state's taxpayers joust at windmills.
Anonymous said…
The same reasons she opposed 1215. Listen to the committee hearings. When, while lobbying against it, did Kate Looby EVER say that the problem with 1215 was that it lacked exceptions? Here, I'll save you some time: Never.
bill fleming said…
The 2% stat is grossly misleading. It would be good if people stopped using it. A thorough review of the source document will show you why if you''re interested.

Just google "Induced Abortion South Dakota" and get the PDF document from the State's Dept. of health website.
Anonymous said…
Nonnie,
Even assuming you are correct with your assumptions, is HB 1215 or any other law really the answer?
It seems to me the issue is greater than abortion on demand. This is about birth control. Are you in favor of birth control? Are you in favor of access to birth control? Are you wiling to pay for either of the above? Are you in favor of adoption? Are you in favor of changing the laws to make adoption a viable alternative? Are you willing to stop judging the young unmarried pregnant girl? Are you ready to stop teaching abstinence only in high schools?
nonnie said…
2:15. I am in favor of all the above actually except maybe me paying for someone else's birth control. I am not in favor of schools handing out birth control though. And I still oppose abortion. "Abortion stops a beating heart" is more than just a catch phrase.

I think adoption laws need to be strengthened in favor of the adoptive parents and the child so that a birth mother can't change her mind and uproot a child and destroy a bonded family unit later if she changes her mind. That has scared many away from adoption in the US.
Anonymous said…
9:11:

should we leave all other issues up to the people who are personally affected by them?

Maybe I should be able to personally deal with the guy who beat my grandmother up.

Personal affectation is irrelevant in a republic with a democratic form of governance. Remember we a nation of law not men.
Anonymous said…
Anon 9:11 (Nice post time, by the way)

So it's ok with you if we pass a law that says you have to give me access to your body if my life in in danger?

If I need a kidney and you're my blood type, you're spare kidney is mine. How 'bout it, 911?

I'm going to hazard a guess that you are not female.
Anonymous said…
According an AP release today, The American College of Obstetrics is recommending that all pregnant women be screened for Down Syndrome. The article can be read in most daily papers, USA today, and CNN carries the story on their web site.

Now, pray tell, what would a woman do if she wanted to have an abortion because of this affliction to her baby, and a law would forbid them.

Some will choose to carry the baby...some will not. The choice should be between her and her God and not a decision made by a group of self-righteous, self-seeking legislators who need to get back down to business and forget about bringing up this issue to get conservative voters to the polls. The poll has spoken.
Anonymous said…
My opinion is that by and large, most South Dakotans oppose abortion. Having said that, we are also independant thinkers and don't like to be told what to do.

I personally think abortion is a horrible act and am thankful I was never in a situation where I had to even consider it. However, I very much dislike the methods and hard handed tacticts by the far right during this campaign. (I'm right, your wrong, I'm smart, you're stupid, etc.)

It was the pro-lifers, not the issue itself, that caused me to vote NO on HB 1215. Unfortunatly, they just don't get it or won't accept it.

If someone asked, sure I'd say it was because it didn't include exceptions - that's an easier answer. Not correct, but easier. I'm not alone.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over