More abortion legislation. Is it better to chip away?

At the same time a group of legislators are opposing Gordon Howie's effort to outlaw abortion except for rape, incest, and the health of the mother (an exception I'm told you could drive a truck through), several of the same people opposing it are proposing an abortion measure of their own.

Jay Duenwald and Brock Greenfield are among the sponsors of a measure designed to provide notice to those receiving services in abortion clinics that they can't be coerced into having one, and that if they feel that they were, they can seek a civil remedy:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to require the posting of certain legal notices in abortion facilities and to provide for enforcement through civil suit and the imposition of liquidated damages.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Any facility in which abortions are performed that is a private office or freestanding surgical outpatient clinic shall post the following legal notice in each patient waiting room and patient consultation room used by patients on whom abortions are performed. Any hospital or any other facility in which abortions are performed that is not a private office or freestanding surgical outpatient clinic shall post the following legal notice in each patient admission area used by patients on whom abortions are performed. If requested by the patient, a copy of the notice and access to a telephone in a room that assures privacy shall also be provided.

The posted legal notice shall be printed legibly in boldface type of forty-four points or more:

"It is against the law for anyone, regardless of their relationship to you, to force or coerce

you to have an abortion. By law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will."

Section 2. That chapter 34-23A be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Any state resident who is aggrieved by the failure of anyone to comply with the provisions of section 1 of this Act may enforce the provisions of this Act by bringing a civil suit in any circuit court of competent jurisdiction. Upon a finding that a defendant has failed to comply with the provisions of section 1 of this Act, the court shall award the plaintiff one thousand dollars in liquidated damages plus the plaintiff's court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Section 3. The provisions of this Act are effective on October 1, 2007.
Senate Bill 171 provides the language as written above.

It still remains to be seen whose approach is going to be viewed as the better tact to take. The Right to Life faction, led by Duenwald and Greenfield, or the crew being lead by Gordon Howie (and likely Leslee Unruh) who is expected to drop his abortion bill in sometime in the near future.

The two groups worked together this past election on "Yes on 6," but they seem to be parting ways over whether or not the time (or the voting electorate) is ripe for another attack. Some fear fatigue on the measure will drive down support for another run, but other led by Howie (who took a few hits in 2005 here and here and here for comparing pregnant women to cattle) seem to think that it's better to strike and say you wanted a measure with exceptions, so here it is).

A couple legislators are hedging their bets and can be expected to be named on both measures. But it's clear that the battle lines have been drawn.

Comments

Anonymous said…
So they can sue the clinic, or they can sue the person who forced them to have the abortion?

Is there any statute of limitations on this?

More ridiculous waste-of-time abortion legislation.
Anonymous said…
Here we go with the Terri Schiavo legislation. Brain dead pregnant woman comes in and the family can't pull the plug because the woman didn't consent to an abortion.

Oh well, women are just incubators anyway - right?
Anonymous said…
This is very common-sense legislation, and shouldn't be opposed by anyone. Could you honestly tell me you're in favor of coercion, you "choice" people?
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…
Maybe this measure should be hog-housed from being an abortion measure to requiring actual medical experience for the Sec. of Health.

(instead of making the prerequisite for the position be "power-grabbing bureaucrat from BFM")
Anonymous said…
So they will do the exact same for crisis pregnancy centers if they lie or coerce people right? They will have the right to sue them too right?

If someone was lied to and coerced to not have an abortion based on incorrect information that was given to them while in a conflicted state by another person with the purpose of influencing their decision with lies. Should they be able to sue too? They were damaged by someone else's actions.
Anonymous said…
I know, let's just require an IQ test, or how about make the women own property in this state to qualify to make their OWN medical decision. Wait, here's the consent form Brock wants:

"Are you, really, really, really sure you want to do this you uncaring, unchristian, going to hell on the express train sorry excuse for a women."

Yeah, that sounds about right. Maybe we should make the father consent too?
Veritas said…
Anon 8:03, while your comment was anything but serious, I think you're on to something. Rather than put forward legislation that will have no net effect on the number of abortions performed in the state, why doesn't someone sponsor a bill requiring that both parents of a child must give consent in order for an abortion to be performed. Obviously this is a measure that would require exceptions for rape, incest or cases involving juveniles.
Anonymous said…
Where is there legislation against baby mills? Where women are forced to come to term and their baby taken away from the?
Anonymous said…
that looks really good to me.
Anonymous said…
veritas, I know domestic violence groups would be opposed to any law that required men to sign off before a woman could have an abortion.

Some women, who have been battered and fear their partners, opt for an abortion so that their partners cannot abuse the child too. Others opt for an abortion because they want to sever all ties with the batterer and a child would prevent that.

A woman in that situation is often terrified that the man might find out she is pregnant.

If the woman opted to carry the child to term and give it up, the man would have to sign off to have the child adopted, and a lot of guys would refuse to do that.

All of that is difficult to understand - or perhaps even to imagine - unless you have been in that position or worked with women in those situations. But that is the reality for some victims of domestic violence.
veritas said…
Anon 10:32, your points are well made and hard to argue against. Family and friends of mine have had abortions. Some for the very same reasons you put forward as justification. I'm sorry, but even with personal experience pulling me toward your conclusion, I cannot believe that the child involved is better dead than alive. I cannot believe that a woman's only or best recourse to avoid abuse is to take an innocent life.

I agree with you that this can be a brutal world at times, but that brutality is only compounded when we resort to the taking of innocent life to solve our problems.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.