Speaking of abortion...

I notice that the House State Affairs committee is holding off on the abortion bill, HB 1293 at the same time later measures are already scheduled for a hearing.

(See the status here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/1293.htm)

I suspect it's because they know they're going to have to set aside a large block of time for the measure. In fact, I'd expect it to go into evening testimony. This got me thinking about the other abortion related measures up this session:
SB 172, An Act to require that a certain statement of law be read by the attending physician to any pregnant woman prior to performing an abortion, and

SB 171 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,
still await their own hearings as well.

HB 1296, the "sonogram" bill, made it through the House of Representatives yesterday on a 43-24 vote as follows:
The question being “Shall HB 1296 pass?”

And the roll being called:

Yeas 43, Nays 24, Excused 3, Absent 0

Yeas:
Boomgarden; Brunner; Buckingham; Carson; Davis; DeVries; Dreyer; Dykstra; Faehn; Gillespie; Gilson; Glenski; Hackl; Hanks; Heineman; Hunt; Jerke; Juhnke; Koistinen; Krebs; Lust; Miles; Moore; Nelson; Noem; Novstrup (Al); Novstrup (David); Olson (Betty); Olson (Russell); Olson (Ryan); Putnam; Rausch; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Steele; Van Etten; Vanneman; Vehle; Weems; Wick; Willadsen; Speaker Deadrick

Nays:
Ahlers; Burg; Cutler; Dennert; Elliott; Engels; Feinstein; Gassman; Halverson; Hargens; Haverly; Hills; Kirkeby; Lucas; McLaughlin; Pederson (Gordon); Peters; Pitts; Sigdestad; Street; Thompson; Tidemann; Turbiville; Van Norman

Excused:
Bradford; Howie; Nygaard
With a total of 5 abortion measures, the stage is being set right now for the 2007 session to be more about abortion than the 2006 session was.

Comments

girl gone wild said…
I'm not sure how SB 171 (posted written notification) and SB 172 (scripted language for doctor to read) can be debated without shedding light on the fact that SDCL 34.24A-10.1 is already being challenged in federal court and there is an already an injunction on requiring a number of the scripted disclosures contained in that statute. Looks like this one will be challenged right along with the original statute if enacted.
Deputy Dawg said…
They've got Roger Hunt's secret pal waiting in the wings to bail out the state with the millions needed to defend illegal laws. Didn't you know the legislature existed solely to be the "crash test dummy" of the whacky right? Besides, it's only money.
Elephant's Memory said…
I see Roger Hunt is still running loose and voting on bills. When is Larry Long going to put that con man behind bars? I think I'll send him some soap on a rope so he doesn't have any "accidents" in the Big House.
VJ said…
Yeas:
Boomgarden; Brunner; Buckingham; Carson; Davis; DeVries; Dreyer; Dykstra; Faehn; Gillespie; Gilson; Glenski; Hackl; Hanks; Heineman; Hunt; Jerke; Juhnke; Koistinen; Krebs; Lust; Miles; Moore; Nelson; Noem; Novstrup (Al); Novstrup (David); Olson (Betty); Olson (Russell); Olson (Ryan); Putnam; Rausch; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Steele; Van Etten; Vanneman; Vehle; Weems; Wick; Willadsen; Speaker Deadrick

God's Army!
Anonymous said…
God needs an army? One would think if God wanted something done she could do it herself.

171 & 172 are a waste of time. As GGW said, that idea is already in the courts and has lost once.
Anonymous said…
anon 7:17

You may want to tell the whole truth next time you type. It's 1166 you are referencing and last time I checked it won 2 battles in the past month. Which means a pro-abortion judge was overturned by their poor decision which rarely happens. I saw someone else post regarding 1166 and they are correct. Planned Parenthood is in deep trouble with that one!
Anonymous said…
vj

What bill are you referencing with your vote?

SB171 and 172 have not been heard in the House. All of your yeas votes are House members.
Anonymous said…
Elephant memory:

Rep Hunt is innocent till proven guilty.
James said…
elephant's memory-

In order to throw someone behind bars they need to be convicted of breaking the law. Since you are obviously so sure that this was done can you please post a link to the exact law that was broken?

I still haven't seen a single person post the actual law that was broken.
girl gone wild said…
anon. 7:17 you are quite wrong...the 8th Circuit upheld the District Court's temporary injunction on provisions HB 1166 which was codified into SDCL 34-24A-10.1. The State will have an opportunity to reargue en banc in April 2007 at the 8th Circuit in St. Louis but meantime the injunction stays.

34-24A-10.1 requires that a physician tell a patient a number of things either 24 hours or 2 hours in advance of an abortion procedure. my point was that SB 171 and SB 172 present essentially the same issues, and it would logically follow that they would be vulnerable to the same kinds of legal challenges.

I'm not really sure what case(s) you might be referring to regarding "wins" on 1166 - would you care to enlighten us with specific references?

and if i might be so presumptuous...it seems that vj may have been referring to the legislators that sponsored and co-sponsored SB 172 rather than referring to a floor vote...

Popular posts from this blog

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

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th