KSFY: Advance copy of abortion measure in hand

KSFY is announcing that they have an advance copy of the abortion measure in hand and are giving details on what it contains:
The new bill says if a woman's life is in danger, or she is a victim of rape or incest, an abortion can be performed upon certain conditions.

Specifically, the bill says if a doctor determines the pregnancy has put a woman's life in danger and another doctor agrees with the assessment, an abortion can be performed.

In a case of rape or incest, the crime must be reported within 50 days of the event. An abortion could then be performed no later than 17 weeks into the pregnancy in both cases.

and...

A source tells KSFY there are 25 sponsors of the bill, but there is no prime sponsor, it's a group effort.
You can read that all here, but that last line is complete BS. SOMEONE is going to have to put their name on the line as the prime sponsor of the measure.

Despite Gordon Howie being the likely person whose name is going to be on the line, I'm told that the measure has significant ties to (if not being written by) Harold Cassidy, the new Jersey attorney who has been haunting the halls of the State Capitol lately.

I'll have more on this later.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Of course KSFY gets the inside scoop of the religious right wing whackos in Pierre. Mitch Krebs, spouse of one of these whackos, has been their gopher all along. At least he will now get paid for his services to the Governor as his new press mouthpiece. After he derailed the debate between Rounds and his opponent in November, Mitch can get his big fat pay-off. Chi-ching! Prostitution still pays!!!!
johnnie w. said…
gggrrreat more abortion legislation...

About time some member the legislature has the courage to draft a medical marijuana bill.

Maybe we could expect to see doctors and patients, and not law enforcement and Sec. of Health Doneen Hollingsworth (who has already demonstrated ZERO knowledge of this issue), testify as to the merits of such a bill.

That would be a great day for the South Dakota legislature.
Anonymous said…
First, there is no health exception. That's a huge mistake, as much of the opposition to this bill stemmed from the fact that women and their doctors were precluded from making decisions about the health impacts of the pregnency.

Secondly, the Vote Yes on Six Campaign claimed that there were exceptions for rape and incest in the bill (remember the "emergency contraception exception?"). What are they going to argue now? That there really wasn't a rape or incest exception in the last bill, but now there is one? Are they going to say that they were lying the last time around?
Anonymous said…
Can someone please tell Harold Cassidy and the other out of state activists that think they can run our state to get the hell out? On his website, Cassidy touts his work on "Planned Parenthood vs Mike Rounds, Alpha Center." I'm sure he's getting paid a pretty penny for his work on that case, and I wonder how much he plans to make once this bill is challenged in Federal District Court.

I'm sick and tired of these out-of-state abortion zealots treating South Dakota like their personal test tube. If this guy wants to push his personal agenda, or force a case that results in significant legal fees and noteriety heading towards his firm, maybe he should do it in a state where he pays taxes. And he can take the creeps with their vans covered with pictures and slogans (and always with out-of-state plates) with them.

And what does it say about our own legislators who, apparently, can't even draft their own legislation? If Gordon Howie or the other "collaborators" want to introduce legislation that they drafted, or they drafted with the help of South Dakotans, fine. But it is unethical for them to use their official positions in state government to serve a legislative surrogates for out-of-state special interests who will make money off of efforts that 1) divide our state, and 2) cost our state treasury taxpayer dollars.
Anonymous said…
Hahaha! Silly Republicans. You're going to do it again! I love it!
Anonymous said…
The definition of insanity is...

Aw, never mind...
Anonymous said…
Seriously, aren't there any Republican lawyers in South Dakota smart enough to draft this fairly simple piece of legislation? If the people we elect aren't smart enough to draft their own bills, why are they running for office in the first place?

Why in the world are we taking direction from someone from, of all places, New Jersey on the laws we should pass in our state? Their state is screwed up enough, they ought to spend their time trying to clean up their own rat-hole of a state before coming out here and meddling with our affairs.

And I do wonder how much Harold Cassidy stands to make off this little scam...
Anonymous said…
It all makes sense now. This guy Cassidy is probably the one who told Roger Hunt to form a sham corporation to funnel $750,000 of illegal money into the Vote Yes for Life Campaign. That's how they do elections in New Jersey.

When Roger finally discloses the donor, don't be surprised if it's a "Waste Management Company," and if I were Steve Hildebrand, I'd have someone else start my car for me...

Fahgetaboutit...
Anonymous said…
Good point, 10:10, Carmela Soprano is a pretty devout Catholic. I'm sure she's opposed to abortion.

I guess this adds a new twist to the lobbying efforts on this bill. "I'm Harold, this is Vinny, Paulie and Lou. We'd like to talk to you about the abortion bill and the future of your knee caps..."

Any word on this size of this Cassidy character's trunk?

But seriously, why are our legislators listening to some trial lawyer from New Jersey and ignoring the clearly stated will of the people of South Dakota?
Anonymous said…
Any legislator who is under any sort of dellusion that the people of South Dakota want our state to become the guinea pig for the national anti-abortion movement is either not paying attention, or incredily stupid.

Just go home. All of you.
Anonymous said…
I guess they've got education, jobs and the budget solved so we can move on to abortion, which hasn't gotten the attention it deserves in the last few years...

Why even have elections? Why don't we just let the special interests just appoint the legislature and let the majority avoid the trouble of going to the polls and registering our voices.

This is an incredible perversion of democracy. Every one of those legislators on this piece of crap legislation ought to be embarassed and ashamed (although, I'll bet that they're feeling tremendously self-righteous right now...).
lexrex said…
10:16, you said our legislators are "ignoring the clearly stated will of the people of South Dakota?"

i think you misread what the will of the people is. first, the fixed written will of the people, the constitution, demands that the right to life extends to all human beings, not just the born ones.

second, i think a case could be made that a large majority of south dakotans want an abortion ban, just with execeptions for rape and incest.

few campaigned harder and was as vocal for the abortion ban than gordon howie. a majority of his constituents rejected the ban, but also approved him.

message: gordon, go back to pierre and pass a ban that we can accept.
Anonymous said…
I prayed and prayed, and all I got was a NJ lawyer. Shi*.
Anonymous said…
rob r wrote:
"the fixed written will of the people, the constitution, demands that the right to life extends to all human beings"

Right about that, but can you tell me where in the constitution, state or federal, it declares that a fetus is a human being? Thanks in advance.
Anonymous said…
The bill won't make it out of the senate. The senators that vote against the bill will get re-elected. Nobody will care. Our legislators and many people on this blog are so out of touch with what South Dakota wants. South Dakota wants to be left alone.
Anonymous said…
right on 11:02

too many senators want to be re-elected. I see one of my senators, who was a strong supper last year, is not on the list. I was surprised he is listening to the voters. Usually is head strong and does as he pleases.

For what reason would that "bunch" in the House decide to put up a bill which they are evidently incapable of writing into the hopper knowing it won't get through the Senate. And probably in most cases their district defeated it at the polls last November. Are they daffy? Don't they know they need to give it a rest or the people are going to be so sick of it, they aren't ever never going to get anything passed. They certainly are an inept group of politicians, to say the very least.

It is interesting to note that we now learn that the law they passed last year did not include a rape or incest clause.

So why would be believe them now?
lexrex said…
11:00, "Right about that, but can you tell me where in the constitution, state or federal, it declares that a fetus is a human being? Thanks in advance."

i can neither tell you where in the constitution, state or federal, where it declares that a fetus nor an adult is human being.

i can point to you where it says that the right to life may not be abridged. and by short study of the common law, one can easily find that the right to life extends to all human beings, as far as the law is scientifically able to determine.

200 years ago, the standard was quickening. today, it can be proven at conception.
Anonymous said…
Tis a shame Lexrex failed High School government class.

14th amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,"

Says nothing about fetuses, clearly states about living breathing humans though.

As for your faux science that somehow conception is the point of independent life your sadly wrong and should look into some remedial science classes.

PS, you tipped everyone off your Catholic.
Anonymous said…
Maybe Harold gave the $750,000 to Roger and they hid it in the sham corp because it came from "crazy Uncle Harold from New Jersey."

I just can't believe that any of our legislators are going through with this again. Notice, the "best and brightest" of the SD legislature are not signing on. Let that be a clue for the rest of them.
lexrex said…
12:52, i like how you conveniently slipped in "independent."

you fail in your knowledge of history and your guess that i am catholic.
lexrex said…
hey pp, what's the latest on the dempster/dykstra health care reform proposal?
Anonymous said…
If these people actually wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would follow the time-tested methods of promoting comprehensive sex. ed. and accessible, affordable birth control. Worldwide, countries which have such things have much lower rates of abortion than countries which outright make abortion illegal.

Outlawing abortion will merely turn women into outlaws. It will not stop abortion from occurring. Rather, it will harm, and, in some cases, kill women.

Thus, if people actually wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion, they would promote sex. ed. and birth control. If fewer abortions was actually their goal.
Anonymous said…
Boy, you guys sure know how to beat a dead horse.
VJ said…
3:38 PM says "promoting comprehensive sex. ed. and accessible, affordable birth control." You have got to be kidding!

Sorry.....accessible, affordable birth control so teenagers can have all the sex they want without worry is just not going to be supported by my fellow Catholics or the Church! I don't know about the other churches, but the Catholic Church says "No Way"!

Abstinence is the word….get used to it!

It’s Good vs Evil…..let’s see who lines up on what side when this bill is brought to the floor!
Anonymous said…
Not every church says "no way."

Maybe those of us who aren't Catholic don't need to have your religion's morals pushed on us by the government of this state.
Patti Martinson said…
Oh goody, I have to have two doctors declare my life is in danger before I am allowed to save my own life. How noble of the legislators.

I also have to be raped by a relative or stranger and THEN they are kind enough to allow me to decide for myself.

Boy, they surely care a lot about me don't they? I guess I should be lucky they consider me smart enough to feed and clothe myself.

I should make sure to walk two steps behind them, all the better to kick their asses.
Anonymous said…
vj - If teaching abstinence works, why are there so many unwanted pregnancies? The teenagers are already having sex, and that is not going to change.

The Catholic Church can continue to urge its teenagers to practice abstinence. It cannot, however, dictate policy for the state of South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
At least vt's being honest about his/her goal -- to preclude other people from having sex in a manner that his/her religion opposes.

So it's not really all about the little fetuses. It's really about legislating sexuality. Huh. Who'da thunk?

First, some news. 95% of all people have sex outside of marriage. Abstinence is not effective as birth control. Never has been. Never will.

Second, if you don't want Catholic teenagers to have sex, then teach them, in church. Don't try to impose your religion beliefs on the rest of us through the force of state law.
Anonymous said…
Did you know the 95% of people having sex before marriage statistics is false?

Do the reseach and tell me where this statistic originated.

I know the answer. Planned Parenthood.
Anonymous said…
Didn't the Taliban in Afghanistan teach abstinence too as part of their religion? I'd say that worked out well for them.
Anonymous said…
I thought the pro-choice people said they would support the abortion ban if there was an exception for rape and incest?

Where is the support?
Anonymous said…
9:27 pm - I don't think they said they would support it. I believe several of them said they would not oppose a ban that included the exceptions. There's a difference between taking action and doing nothing.
Anonymous said…
9:14 pm - Wrong.

Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States 1940-2003 is a study that was done by Lawrence P. Finer, PhD, which was published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports.

Information about this study is available online at http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Sex/6-12-21-AlmostAll.htm
or http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/ Check it out for yourself.

It states that "According to this analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44."

"The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds,” Finer said.

No where is there anything to suggest that Planned Parenthood had any type of involvement in this study.
Anonymous said…
10:14

No, you are wrong.

Lawrence Finer works for Guttmacher Instituite.

Guttmacher Instituite is a division of Planned Parenthood.

The 95% statistic is propaganda to tell us everyone is doing it thus it must be okay

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html
Anonymous said…
10:14

No, you are wrong.

Lawrence Finer works for Guttmacher Instituite.

Guttmacher Instituite is a division of Planned Parenthood.

The 95% statistic is propaganda to tell us everyone is doing it thus it must be okay

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html
Anonymous said…
This looks like a common sense, good compromise bill,despite all the snide, arrogant, and rude comments today. What many who voted against #6 last year said they wanted was a larger exception that actually allowed abortions for rape and incest. So, the leg is delivering what they asked for.
The bill apparently has the safeguards that the crime must have been reported, to prevent opening the floodgates to deception. Also, there is no place or reason for any "health" exception , and I hope this bill contains none. Anyone with any knowledge of past court rulings knows the clause would make any supposed ban absolutely worthless.
I would vote for this bill, for the good of the people of SD and America, despite whatever excuse the rabid pro-aborts come up with next.
Anonymous said…
11:25 pm - While Planned Parenthood may utilize research conducted by scientists at the Guttmacher Institute, they are two separate organizations.

The connections are: the founder, Alan Guttmacher, was formerly a president of Planned Parenthood before founding the research organization that bears his name; and the research is about sexual and reproductive health, which is what Planned Parenthood focuses on.
But they are two separate organizations.

Finer's study was based on interviews conducted for the National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This federal organization collected the data for their National Survey of Family Growth. Finer analyzed the data that the government collected for his premarital sex study.

MSNBC reports that Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who advocates abstinence for young people, said he found the high percentages of premarital sex cited in the study to be plausible.

Of course people who do not like the results of Finer's study will question the validity of it. That's par for the course.
aus blog said…
People should be able to choose to use birth control,
to avoid having to make another choice.
nonnie said…
Patti wouldn't be happy unless free abortions were offered 24 hours a day at all medical facilities to anyone who presented there.

This bill has the exceptions you, PP, et al wanted. So what if there are also items in place to help ensure these exceptions are not being misused. Guess we know the angle that PP will be coming from this time in opposition to this new bill.
Anonymous said…
Funny thing, and maybe it was George Carlin who said it, that if men could get pregnant you could get an abortion at McDonalds.

This is about control and the subservient role of women pushed by men and all too many women in our society.
Patti Martinson said…
I would be happy if women were given the freedom to choose.

I didn't want the last abortion bill and neither do I want this one.

I am pro-choice. I support any choice the woman makes, be it abortion, adoption, keeping the child etc. I would not support a bill that limits a woman's right to choose.

Isn't that a wonderful thing? Supporting a woman no matter what she chooses?
veritas said…
Patti Martinson, it is a Christian principle to love and show compassion for someone no matter what they say or do. However, it is no great thing to support any and every decision a person makes.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long