Is the ban back in 2007?
Read it all here."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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
He might believe that another fiasco in the same vein as the 2006 abortion bll could hurt his re-election chances.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
It makes no sense as a logical argument.