Is the ban back in 2007?

Everyone is reporting this AM on the abortion measure being proposed. Just as a quick one off, here's what was said in the Argus:

"The facts remain that abortion harms women and kills 800 innocent babies per year in South Dakota in my district," said Rep. Keri Weems, R-Sioux Falls, who is a sponsor of the bill.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said the organization's officials were disappointed that lawmakers are bringing back abortion legislation after last year's ban was overturned.

"The people of this state told the government that they shouldn't be involved in these intensely personal and very difficult private family issues," Looby said.

Supporters of the ban disagreed and said the new measure would have broad appeal.

"It's very well-drafted," said Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, who was the main House sponsor of the 2006 abortion ban.

Last year's abortion debate was contentious, and some think this session is too soon to introduce any kind of ban.

The drafting of the bill has led to contentious moments between some lawmakers, and some think the bill has caused divisions between legislators who consider themselves to be pro-life.

"I would think they would rather be building bridges instead," said Sen. Brock Greenfield of Clark, a Republican who also serves as director of South Dakota Right to Life. Greenfield is not a sponsor of the bill and said he doesn't think an abortion ban is appropriate after the previous defeat at the polls.

Read it all here.

I'm working on a story for this, and hope to have it posted tonight or tomorrow. Stay tuned for what I hope is some probing below the surface on the measure.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"It's very well-drafted," Roger Hunt said.

When is this crook going to be hauled off to jail? When will the House begin hearings on his $750,000 swindle? Why does the news media waste any time on this whack job?
Anonymous said…
Anything is very well-drafted in Hunt's mind. Last year's bill was very well-drafted. The bill in 2004 was very well-drafted. That's legalese for "Everything is wonderful. Whatever comes along, I will support it."
Anonymous said…
Well drafted? This is coming from the guy who convicted himself in the media for his cunning plan to pull one over on the election. Hunt also thought last years bill was well written. The result of the language in the last ban had some horrible unintended or not even thought about consequences.
lexrex said…
i wasn't one of those clamoring for another ban right away, but i can't quarrel with those who think the time is now, particularly because of what happened in november.

the message from the nearly 45% of the voters was that we should ban abortion almost completely. that's a healthy start.

and the message from a large segment of the "no" voters was that they wanted a broader exception for rape and incest.

almost the whole debate hinged on whether the bill was "too extreme," not whether the time was right.

some legislators and some media may feel a bit fatigued, which i completely understand, but that doesn't excuse them from doing what is right and, in this case, what the people want.
Anonymous said…
Keri Weems is the dimmest bulb in the state legislature. And that's saying a lot.
Anonymous said…
Lexrex, that doesn't make any sense. Don't you recognize a train when it runs right over the top of you? 56% to 44% in politics is called a "mandate."
Anonymous said…
pp

Please delete the personal attack on Rep. Weems.

If anonymouse 9:31 can't form an intelligent arguement, then he or she resorts to a personal attack.

Lets raise the discussion to the issue and avoid name calling.
James said…
I'm so glad our legislators are bringing this back. This shows that they are not going to back down to the pro-abortion groups that come in. This also shows they are listening to the people who wanted something that had a more clear rape and incest exception in the law and they are giving that to them. Thank you to all the sponsors of this bill!
Anonymous said…
9:36, what makes you think the voters "mandated" unfettered abortion on demand? If I recall, "rape and incest" were the deal breakers. Now, these legislators bring a new bill with what the voters supposedly want, and you have a problem with it. I think the problem is you pro-abortionists, who are now afraid that abortion on demand is on its way out. After 34 years of slaughter, it's about time.
Anonymous said…
What's to be scared of? If it is introduced again and comes to a public vote, so it is. If the resounding 56% disagreed before, why are the pro-lifers worried?

My answer is simple...last year's overtaking of the vote was due to rape and incest exclusions (abt 2% of abortions) that the pro-lifers beat into our heads as voters. Now those crutches are not there, and the true SD feelings can be known.

Whats w/ Greenfield's stance of non-support? Politicians are hired by the public to do what is right for the public. Hopefully he isnt letting special interest get in the way? Regardless, Im optimistic that this measure could be the end of abortions in South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
Replace pro-lifers w/ pro-choicers. My mistake...
Anonymous said…
This will be fun to watch. The far right will implode on itself. Will Brock lose his job? Will Roger go to jail? The message from the last election was for the government to leave the voters alone. This is what South Dakota has always been about. Government is not the solution to the problems, Government is the problem.
Douglas said…
The view that the opposition to the theocrats who think they should have their hand on every women's crotch only results because there were no rape exclusions is faulty I think.

That is probably an artifact of the opposition campaign which worked on the weakest links and obvious problems. Solving those "problems" does not mean that an effective campaign on the basic issue itself can't be designed.

The latest incarnation of the rapist rights and subjection of women to the will of males and priests is a slippery slope to the dark ages.

Actual conservatives will also figure out that we don't need government intrusions into the bedroom regarding basic decisions related to sexual relations and reproduction. Big brother government is no more benign when state legislators do it than when Bush DC Republicans trample on fundamental freedoms.
Anonymous said…
Douglas,

As a conservative, I feel that abortion is killing, and I stand on my opinion as someone who faced a decision of abortion once, declined to go through w/ it, and she is alive, and a beautiful 10yr old today because of it. I get very angry at narrow minded statements such as "Actual conservatives will also figure out that we don't need government intrusions into the bedroom regarding basic decisions related to sexual relations and reproduction"

That is not a basic decision! Maybe in the some other state, but here, the way I was raised, you dont kill!

We could go back and forth...lets let the people decide again.
nonnie said…
Anon 9:36 said, "56% to 44% in politics is called a "mandate."

Don't you recognize this is a different bill, one with exceptions, the very thing that the pro-aborts were crying about last time. Last time they used this argument nd convinced many voters in SD that was the reason for most of the abortions in the state (in reality about 2%). Well, the legislators listened and are now giving the people the bill they wanted last time. Get over it. Hopefully this will end abortion on demand in SD.
Anonymous said…
Yawn. More clammoring by those who just can't mind their own business. If abortion bothers you don't have one. The entire basis for this debate hinges on a religious idea that a blob of tissue has some magical wand wave from God. If that is your personal belief have at. There are people in the world who think cows are sacred.

Trying to twist or DIY some pseudo science to attempt to make your religious belief scientific fact does not make it so. None of this in any way shape or form gives you the right to force your religious view onto other people's lives and that is exactly what is being done.

If you don't want an abortion don't have one, other than that get your nose out of other people's crotches.
VJ said…
"abortion harms women and kills 800 innocent babies per year in South Dakota" said Rep. Keri Weems, R-Sioux Falls.

Kills 800 innocent babies per year! Yes, we are talking about good VS evil! Where does your legislator stand?

You can't support the killing of babies and still be a Christian. Yes, you can call yourself one, but you are not one!

Just tell me you pro abortion liberal wingnuts, where are you going to find a church that will accept you as a member? Not in our Catholic Church! In fact there has been talk of excommunicating pro abortion members from the Church. I think it's time for that to happen!

Catholic World News, October 18, 2004: “to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is "personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication.”

It will be interesting to see if any Catholic politician supports pro-abortion!
Patti Martinson said…
Since when did any relgious person need a church? Why is it necessary to join a church to be Christian?

Jesus did just fine without a pope or church or anything like that.

Odd that so-called Christians are more than happy to stand between a person of faith and God.
Anonymous said…
12:12 Nonni. Me get over it? You're kidding right?

Have you read the new bill yet?

I haven't.

How can you possibly know what YOU think of something you've not even read? ...let alone know what the rest of the people in South Dakota think.

Get over it, indeed.

That's funny.
Bob Newland said…
Credit where it's due. Greenfield is not with the Hunt pack this time.

He might believe that another fiasco in the same vein as the 2006 abortion bll could hurt his re-election chances.
Anonymous said…
I am pro-life but I will not support Leslee's efforts until I know how the last two and a half million dollars were spent. (And where much of it came FROM.) Why not open the books for all to see? I am uneasy with this kind of secrecy.
Anonymous said…
douglASS
there you go again with your crude ignorance. You try to sound somewhat intelligent but always end up sounding like the complete idiot that you are.
Anonymous said…
For those who argue that the government should stay out of reproductive issues, it's too late. They already give Planned Parenthood millions of dollars each year. If that is the case, then stop the funding. You can't have it both ways.

Also, if a person won't vote for an end to abortion on demand because they don't know who this "donor" is, then I have a hard time believing they would ever vote to restrict abortion.

For those of you with abortion "fatigue", please remember that while you are taking a well meaning rest, 800 unborn lives are being taken each year. While people are "healing" and "bridges are being mended", women in our state are being harmed by abortion. I have yet to hear of education fatigue or tax relief fatigue.
Anonymous said…
There are more than a few pro-life citizens who are not happy with the way Leslee runs her operations. She receives many donations from poor and middle income people and gets a whopping big check for herself in each endeavor. If this were just about saving babies, for her, would that be happening? Her family is already wealthy.

There are good reasons that reasonable people like Gov. Rounds and National Right to Life have for opposing this route. Leslee, of course, thinks she knows best. While I am sure that she does care about the issue, I am beginning to think she cares more about money and fame.
Anonymous said…
3:16 Exactly what does an "unborn life" mean?

Be careful now... think before you answer.

(Hint, There are far more than 800... tens of thousands actually.)

Further, how many "born lives" are being taken every year, and where is your wildly vehement concern over them?

You people are so incoherant sometimes. It's as though you are speaking in tongues... which is fine, I suppose, as long as you only intend to communicate with each other.
Anonymous said…
Why are you under the assumption that people who are fighting for the unborn care nothing about those who are born? There are those who do both. I am just as passionate and involved in helping those "born". As far as "unborn lives" is concerned, it seems pretty self explanatory. Are you going to try to say that an unborn child is not alive?
Anonymous said…
You didn't say "unborn child" you said "unborn lives."
That's gobbledygook. Meaningless doublespeak.

Life comes from life. As far as we know, it can't come from anywhere else. So to say "unborn life" is either 1) meaningless or 2) means "dead."

Take your pick.
Anonymous said…
When will the Republicans remember that the government that governs best-- governs least?
Anonymous said…
9:49 AM, tell me who is a dimmer bulb than Kari Weems, I dare you! PS-get over yourself.

VJ, thanks, once again now I know I'm not a Christian and am going to Hell. I'm thinking of joining a cult, leaving my husband and kids, doing drugs, drunk driving, not paying my taxes, downloading some pornography and leaving my dog outside in the cold. You've really depressed me!
Anonymous said…
For the person who wants to argue about the verbage of unborn lives- let me rephrase then. While well meaning people take their "rest" over 800 unborn children are killed each year.
Anonymous said…
5:16

So you do have your own mind after all.

Congratulations!

Thank you.

See what it feels like to actually think for a change?

That's how you know you're alive, you know?
Anonymous said…
vj said "Just tell me you pro abortion liberal wingnuts, where are you going to find a church that will accept you as a member? Not in our Catholic Church!"

What makes you think I would be interested in joining a church that preached morality while they moved known pedophiles from parish to parish so they could victimize more children?

Your church is not held in the highest regard anymore, vj. So try a different argument.
Anonymous said…
VJ you need help.

Seriously.

The world just doesn't work the way you need it to. Too bad, maybe... / But it just doesn't.

The long and short of it is that you have been brainwashed.

Sadly, It's not hard to do.

Even with very "smart" people.

Especially for very "smart" people.


————————————————————
VJ. No kidding: if there are no other "outs" call me. I think PP can figure out a way to get my number. There is help available.
Douglas said…
"**** douglASS
there you go again with your crude ignorance. You try to sound somewhat intelligent but always end up sounding like the complete idiot that you are.**** "

Somebody who thinks douglASS is really just too cute for words wouldn't recognize crude ignorance if as Sibson says, you looked in a mirror.

Calling me or anybody else a "complete idiot" is not a substitute for logic.

As for anonymous who decided to have a child instead of abort it and now it is a lovely 10 year old.
Congratulations. You had a choice and made it. So, why do you want to deny that choice to others.
And, congratulations on your good luck. Some who think they should not have an abortion end up with a life of misery or dump somebody like Jeffery Dahmer on society.

Good examples are no better than bad examples in this kind of a discussion. An individual's own unique experience may or may not be relevant as it relates to public policy or political theories.

Trying to make a 20 year old man or woman the equal of a few dozen cells is absurd even if both at "life". And the argument that those cells might be another Einstein is also irrelevant. They are even more likely to be a rapist or child molester or so close to plant life that whatever it becomes is a continuing drain on other humans and society as a whole.
Anonymous said…
"Odd that so-called Christians are more than happy to stand between a person of faith and God." Are you referring to yourself here, Patti? Because you are a long professed atheist on your Blogmore posts.
Anonymous said…
I've never understood the argument that pro-lifers aren't vehemently concerned with the quality of lives of children after birth, and, therefore, that their concern with life before birth is somehow suspect.

It makes no sense as a logical argument.
The concern that I have is that with the proposed ban now including a whole variety of exceptions (enough to insure that any public vote would support it) is that with that in mind, Planned Parenthood would most likely bypass any referral of the new legislation and go right to a legal challenge. Since any court challenge would be heard by our liberal leaning Federal Judge it would most likely end up deepening the pocketbooks of pro-choice attorneys and their expert witnesses. Does that mean we shouldn't try to save those children? I am convinced in spite of the money, we still need to try.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long

More RC Mayor Stuff - On the net, and in the paper.