Abortion bill passes it's first hurdle
On it's way to a public vote.

The abortion measure was heard in House State Affairs this AM, coming out in a different form than it entered. The originally bill, headed for a vote of the legislature, found itself re-written by the Attorney General to be more defensible in court.

After all of the testimony had been heard, Representative Diedrich amended it further. Instead of a measure which would have submitted the ban to debate and final approval by the legislature, the bill was changed to directly propose a vote of the issue to the people at the next general election.

This came after questioning of the AG who noted that if the measure went to court, it stood a better chance if the measure was decided by the people, as opposed to it being simply voted in by the legislature.

Representative Dykstra moved (and it was passed) that the measure be re-named to that of being a prevention act for the use of abortion as birth control (or something like that) on the rationale' that the new measure held the same name as the one that didn't pass the people in 2006.

Representative Joni Cutler tried to send the measure to the depths by moving it be deferred to the 41st day, which was seconded by Hargens. After they only found support on the committee by Turbiville, that motion went down.

Larry Rhoden summed up the dichotomy of thought on the measure as discussion on the measure ended. As he opined that while the "bill was drafted in isolation" which necessitated the AG's re-write, "we need to move forward with this." And that he found it "laughable" that after the debate over 2006's HB 1215 focused on the question of rape and incest provisions, now that exceptions have clearly been added, it was like trying to nail "jello to the wall" because the objections to the measure are now a moving target.

With few exceptions, including Cutler and Turbiville, the committee overwhelmingly passed HB 1293 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.


Anonymous said…

Why? Why in the world would any of them think going through this crap again is a good idea?
Anonymous said…
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. If a legislator believes that abortion is in essence the taking of an innocent life, then how can they in good conscience NOT bring this bill?

If you think another election cycle was going to come and go without the resurrection of this issue then you are obviously not spending much time in SD. Either the legislature or the people (via an initiative) are going to have this on the next general election ballot.
Anonymous said…

I'll have you know that I've lived in SD my whole life.

Did you live here last year? The abortion debate brought with it an atmosphere of mean-spirited, petty, angry, divisive hatred. And you people want to go through all that again?

I love this state. It's the nicest place to live in the United States. But living here last year sucked and the abortion ban was the reason.

I was really hoping to have a break, but apparently the "forcing our beliefs on everyone else" crowd doesn't care what the majority of South Dakotans want.
Anonymous said…
Living in South Dakota has increasingly become an unpleasant endeavor. The answer from the theocrats seems to be that if you don't want to let them run everything or disagree with what they want you should leave. Some democracy isn't it?

They think its a good idea because they are nasty mean angry people who only feel good about themselves if they are holding someone else's head under water. Just listen to how sanctimonious and nasty they get whenever anything relating to the rights of women or gays comes up. It has nothing to do with fetuses, their total disregard toward children in this state shows how hollow that line is. It is about power and punishment.
Anonymous said…
Troof! Troof!
Anonymous said…
Referred Law Six would have reduced the need for abortion by about 98 percent. The law was designed to save lives but South Dakota instead voted to continue to take lives. It was fairly easy for Christians to get behind the bill. The new bill is designed to accomodate South Dakota by adding language that specifically condones murder of those two percent not conceived from rape or incest.

The Conservative Christian Right moved left, now it is time for the left to make a friendly gesture by moving right, toward middle ground.

Bruce -
Anonymous said…
This bill is compromise legislation that includes exceptions for rape incest. It appeals to the broad cross section of voters who thought 1215 was too much.

Most South Dakotans support the inclusion of the rape and incest exceptions. That was made clear in the last election.

I am urgently waiting for many of those same people who publicly shared concerned about the lack of exceptions to now come forward with wholehearted support.

Now, the same old song and dance routine from the pro-aborts won't work. Will their campaign slogan be: Do we have to do this again?
Anonymous said…
I was one of those who felt strongly that there should be rape and incest exceptions in an abortion ban. However, I didn't say I would support a ban with those exceptions. I only said that I wouldn't work against it. And I won't.

But if it goes to a vote again, I will vote NO just like before - and I'm betting there are many more people who feel exactly like I do.

The majority of South Dakotans are sick and tired of this issue, of some people's heavy-handed tactics, and of the divisiveness it has caused in our state. Even if they are pro-life, they will vote NO because of the way this issue has been handed.
Anonymous said…
4:18: How do you know the intention of each of the 190,000 people who voted no on 6? I would be fascinated to find out.
curiousgeorge said…
I am excited to finally pass a bill as needed last year! I am amazed that the folks who worked so hard in stating no exceptions are not celebrating....they are spinning their comments in another direction now? Hmm...what were their real objections last time? Will look forward to finding out!
Anonymous said…
"its first hurdle and its first vote" not "it's first hurdle and it's first vote". "It's" is the possessive form, kind of like the attitude toward women of the supporters of this bill.

That's the only thing new for this topic.
Anonymous said…
Their real objection last time Beorge was to keep your Curious nose out of their crotches. Do they actually have to draw you a picture, Ace?
Anonymous said…
Argh...revision to above..."It's is NOT the possessive form, unlike the attitude of the supporters of this bill."
Anonymous said…
Did anyone listen to the testimony? I though it was great how the opponents were called out that the pro-abortion campaign were calling and screaming for rape and incest and now that was inserted in they are still in opposition. 10-3 everyone, 10-3.

Let's just all be honest and acknowledge that abortion until outlawed will NEVER go away.

Thank you to our legislators for listening to their constituents and putting in another pro life law!
Anonymous said…
If properly written I would vote for the law.

Even with this law or tighter laws, it is worth saying we will never end abortions.

We must work to stop the need for abortions and shrink the number of abortions.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 5:55, if you actually listened to the testimony you would have learned that even when outlawed, abortion NEVER goes away, it just goes from being one of the safest medical procedures to an extemely dangerous one for women. This has been proven in countries all over the world. The lowest incidence of abortion occurs in countries where it is legal, paid for by the state and where they have the greatest access to birth control and the most complete sex ed programs for young people. What is it that we don't understand about that?

Exceptions or no exceptions, the people of SD hate the gov't being in their bedrooms. They'll vote this one down too. Remember how Roger Hunt kept telling us last year that there were "provisions" for rape, incest and health and the voters still voted NO? Funny how NOW there really are exceptions. The voters just want Roger and Leslee to get out of our lives.
Anonymous said…
I REALLY wish the women could be trusted to make their own decisions!! I would personally never have an abortion BUT I wouldn't tell another woman what they should do with with their own bodies and none of you whould EITHER!! I am SOOO sick of the abortion debate I could vomit. I think most people from South Dakota wish we could move on to more important legislation and be done with this abortion saga already!!
Anonymous said…
Gordon Howie will probably be joining the ranks of Bill Earley et al next election.

Anonymous said…
5:28 asked what the pro-aborts reasons would be for opposing this bill or any bill. They want abortion on demand, no reasons given, anytime, just show up and say you want one. Anything that would restrict that they would be against. Right, Kate?
Anonymous said…
If you're going to blog then learn how to punctuate.
Anonymous said…
What people really want is to allow people to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies.

What comes next? Will you be snooping in garbage cans to see if you can find pregnancy strips that tested positive?
Anonymous said…
The new abortion bill is terrible. You have to have a two doctors certify you are on your deathbed before they will allow you to save your own life.

As for rape? The hoops the rape victim and the doctor have to jump through is horrific.

Incest? It's not enough that a father rapes his daughter, but a DNA tests has to be done to prove it. How sick is that?

A woman's word is mud, I guess, to pro-lifers. They really are anti-women.

What kind idiot makes these ridiculous demands on women faced with a terrible situation? It's like the leglislature, Gov. Rounds, and all pro-lifers want to gang rape women over and over again.

You pro-lifers aren't pro-life, you are pro-incest, pro-rape, and anti-women.
Anonymous said…
6:48 PM
YOU obviously are not a health care professional!!

If you are going to spout off those kinds of statements you need to back it up with research.

Countries where abortion is legal and paid for by the state DO NOT have the lowest numbers! Countries that value life and keep abortion illegal have the lowest numbers AND they also have LOW morbidity and morality rates associated with childbirth as well.
Look at Poland for instance.

Liars like you are the ones who call those who appose murder for convenience sake—which includes killing your grandmother because she is old and sick and doesn’t have “quality of life”, Theocrats and other names. You live for yourself and selfishness—for pleasure. You are so to be pitied.
Anonymous said…
11:35 PM "You pro-lifers aren't pro-life, you are pro-incest, pro-rape, and anti-women"

HOW do fathers who rape their daughters cover up their crimes?? They kill the grandchild!

How do statutory rape perps keep on hurting young girls?? They kill the children.

And they get away with it because the Planned Parenthood people are willing to look the other way.

How can ANYONE think that stopping the killing could be a bad thing??

Women are NOT making this decision with their Doctor--carefully reviewing all the options. They don't meet the doctor until they are undressed with their feet in stirrups.

I am sure that you pro-aborts are not really pro-incest, pro-rape, and anti-women but keeping abortion legal and acting like it isn't used as a cover up makes you inadvertently accessories to the crimes! Time to stop the finger pointing—there are three fingers pointing back at yourself!
Anonymous said…
11:50: How do you know what goes on in Planned Parenthood clinics, or for that matter, in the minds and hearts of women seeking abortion?
Anonymous said…
4:54 AM,
How do we know what goes on in a PP clinic? Go listen to the testimony of the last SD doctor to perform abortions in SD. It isn't pretty. Thank God she has the courage and conviction to tell the truth and tell it like it is. May God bless her abundantly.
There has been more than enough testimony from post-abortive women to know what goes on in their minds and hearts. If abortion does not hurt women, why are there endless numbers of women seeking post-abortive counseling and services?
Anonymous said…
6:48: Approximately one-third of American women seek an abortion before the age of 45. If there are even tens of thousands of women seeking counseling after an abortion, that is still not a significant enough number to imply that abortion will cause mental health issues.

In fact, most women do not suffer as a result of their abortion at all (as much as I know you would like that to be the case.)

As for Dr. Giebink, no thanks. I prefer to get my information from the sane.
Anonymous said…
For good or ill, this new bill is nothing but public posturing. I sat in a luncheon with Governor Rounds the Friday before the last election. He took the (in my opinion) courageous task of going through all of the ballot initiatives. He explained and discussed every one of them, gave his opinion on them, and took questions.

When it came to the Initiated Measure 6, he brought up a good point. It was designed to be a test case versus Roe vs. Wade. It was never intended to go into effect as it was previously written. He stated that if it was passed, it would be taken to court immediately. Once in the court systems, it would lose every challenge up to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear it. If the Supreme Court decided to hear it, and if the overturned Roe vs. Wade (both two big if’s), then the state could revisit it looking for exceptions for rape, incest, health, and life.

The current law is no longer a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade. I’ve spoken to several lawyers, and the consensus opinion among my non-scientific sample, was that now the law as written could be in violation of the 14th amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law. Thus, this could get all the way to the Supreme Court, and if on the off chance they hear it, they will most likely not even address the core issue of Roe vs. Wade. All this will end up doing is cost the state money and start yet another round of contentious debates without actually accomplishing anything.
Anonymous said…
11:23 Exactly. Why pass a law that was doomed to failure from the day it was written?
Anonymous said…
1:56 pm - Why? Because some people don't know when to quit!
Anonymous said…
6:48 pm -
Killing pre-born babies is not a bedroom issue. Nobody is invading your bedroom. Has anyone picketed or prayed in front of your bedroom to stop abortion?

Abortion is not safe in a round room or a square room for the pre-born child or her mother. The side-effects are permanent for pre-born children and substantial for the mother. Round, square or triangle rooms you will not change ratios, dead is dead. Post abortive women will continue to join the ranks of survivorship anyway you describe the room or method of killing.

10:09 am -
Said, "As for Dr. Giebink, no thanks. I prefer to get my information from the sane."

That would be who, Kate Looby!

1:56 pm - Exactly! Why allow five unelected officials establish law in 1973 that will fail in 2010?

Roe v. Wade or Doe v. Bolton are long from being settled law.

Using the Constitution it is clear we are currently violating the 14th amendment, which you say will be the focus of discussion (and I think not the only focus).

Some petitions are designed to collapse on themselves to overturn previous rulings. Roe and Doe are ripe for overturn.
Anonymous said…
Anon 2:55
This isn't intended to sound as cold as it most likely will, BUT..

Per United States Law, the unborn (fetus, embryo, baby, let's not get stuck on semantics) is not a United States Citizen and therefore is not allowed equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

You are a United States Citizen if you meet one of the following criteria:

1) You were born in the United States
2) Through birth abroad to two United States citizens if both their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth and At least one of their parents lived in the United States prior to their birth. A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of their citizenship.
3) Through birth abroad to one United States citizen. One of his or her parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person in question's birth; the citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth; and At least 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday. A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship.
4) Naturalization (including taking the citizenship test)

As the unborn does not meet any of these requirements, they are not yet citizens.

Arguing that the 14th amendment should apply to the unborn would require that we first must prove that they are human life (and for every study one side presents, the other side will come up with one that refutes it), and then we must either prove that they somehow meet the above criteria (which they do not as they have not yet been born) or amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act in such a way to grant them citizenship without granting citizenship to everyone whose parents happened to be in the U.S. at some point during the 9 months before they were born.
Anonymous said…
4:54 AM
"How do you know what goes on in Planned Parenthood clinics"

I listened to the testimony for the Task Force to Study Abortion--Katy Looby told us EXACTLY what happens at Planned Parenthood. There is NO discussion between a woman and her personal physician as was described in the Roe V Wade decision.
Women listen to a taped telephone message--which we were given a transcript of (it contained quite a bit of misinformation--or at least unbalanced information.) When they arrive at the clinic they watch a video which is carefully scripted with politically correct terms (to be sure that the women lay their money down and don't really have clear information)
The video says that the feeling that most women have after an abortion is relief---and gives no indication that she might need help or counseling after the fact.
No one ever asks her if the adult with her impregnated her or if he is a relative (or her Dad).
They don't ask questions that they would have to report to the state if they can avoid it.
The FIRST time that the woman MEETS the doctor she is ready for the procedure.
I think that Katy Looby is a pretty credible sorce for what happens at PP.
Anon 11:50

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long