S.D. Lawmakers Launch New Abortion Bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter BioCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BioCatholic

Guest
**PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Legislators introduced a sweeping abortion bill Wednesday that supporters hope will lead to a legal challenge of Roe v. Wade.

The measure would allow exceptions for rape and incest with DNA evidence, making it slightly less rigid than a bill passed last year that contained an exception only to save the life of a woman. A petition campaign forced that bill onto the ballot and voters rejected it in November by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent.

Opponents of the legislation said the issue was settled in the November election and lawmakers should not have revived it.**

news.aol.com/nation/story/_a/sd-lawmakers-launch-new-abortion-bill/n20070131144409990007?cid=505

Bill introduced:
pie.midco.net/davepowers2/abortion_bill.pdf

the text of the ligistation is quite different:
Nothing in Section 2 of this Act prohibits a person from assisting a pregnant mother in obtaining an abortion in a state where such a procedure is legal.
Click to expand...
They finally realized that state powers stop at state borders. :clapping: I never thought they would come to their senses, and would push for a similar bill in Ohio that was literally laughed out of the session.

At the very least, Planned Parenthood still could arrange abortions, have women meet them in Sioux Falls SD, and then bus them to Iowa.

Some of the audio of the legislative sessions discussed the State’s ability to keep women from just traveling across a state line. This bill is definitely not the target they intended for to overturn Roe. They lost the implied ability of preventing women from traveling outside the state, which is an automatic striking down in the Federal courts anyway, they still allow emergency contraception or chemicals up until 4-5 weeks, or “conventional testing methods” tell a women she is pregnant.

This will go to the Federal courts and get struck down, to the appeals circuit, and then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it. Case closed.
 
BioCatholic said:
This will go to the Federal courts and get struck down, to the appeals circuit, and then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it. Case closed.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure. The biggest problem SCOTUS has had with recent anti-abortion legislation is the lack of an exception for the health of the mother. One could still argue that, in rare cases where the abortionist does not have time to consult with another doctor, but it looks to me that this bill overcomes the objection SCOTUS had previously.

I expect the lower courts to follow the principle of stare decisis and enforce Roe, but I can imagine some dissenting votes in that process, and I think it’s possible the Supremes will take up the case. Of course if I had to bet, I’d put money against it.
 
Wasn’t the original legislation’s purpose really to force a review of Roe? My understanding was that the pro-choice contingent made a decision to keep it out of the courts and instead force a referendum on the law, which was then overturned by 56% to 44 %.

What’s remarkable to me is that here is the most restrictive abortion law ever, and still it was supported by 44% of the people. I think that’s a sign that the country is actually becoming more pro-life. A law which allowed abortion in only very limited circumstances would stand a good chance of passage while in effect stopping most abortions that are actually done.
 
Life of the mother and rape and incest, it sounds like it might pass. One of the main concerns with wording(health) has been that during the early years of abortion, when abortion was legal only in NY and California, most mothers claim it was to save their lives. They were all suicidal, etc.

Now we just need over 50% percent on the referendum. Correct?
The Chief Justice decides which cases are taken up?
 
Let us pray that this bill is passed and that Roe Vs Wade is overturned.
 
BioCatholic said:
**PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Legislators introduced a sweeping abortion bill Wednesday that supporters hope will lead to a legal challenge of Roe v. Wade.

The measure would allow exceptions for rape and incest with DNA evidence, making it slightly less rigid than a bill passed last year that contained an exception only to save the life of a woman. A petition campaign forced that bill onto the ballot and voters rejected it in November by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent.

Opponents of the legislation said the issue was settled in the November election and lawmakers should not have revived it.**

news.aol.com/nation/story/_a/sd-lawmakers-launch-new-abortion-bill/n20070131144409990007?cid=505

Bill introduced:
pie.midco.net/davepowers2/abortion_bill.pdf

the text of the ligistation is quite different:

They finally realized that state powers stop at state borders. :clapping: I never thought they would come to their senses, and would push for a similar bill in Ohio that was literally laughed out of the session.

At the very least, Planned Parenthood still could arrange abortions, have women meet them in Sioux Falls SD, and then bus them to Iowa.

Some of the audio of the legislative sessions discussed the State’s ability to keep women from just traveling across a state line. This bill is definitely not the target they intended for to overturn Roe. They lost the implied ability of preventing women from traveling outside the state, which is an automatic striking down in the Federal courts anyway, they still allow emergency contraception or chemicals up until 4-5 weeks, or “conventional testing methods” tell a women she is pregnant.

This will go to the Federal courts and get struck down, to the appeals circuit, and then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it. Case closed.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
contramundum7:
i am responding to a post of yours where u say that the Supreme ct. doesn’t have to go by what is right, but by the law, meaning, the Constitution.
Since when have they done that? They had no right to legalize abortion…
Even on other issues, they have voted against our Constitutional rights. Take the 4th amendment. It says the state needs a search warrant to search and/or seize property. Yet, this “probable cause” nonsense throws our 4th amentment rights out the window. Police can arrest whomever they want & don’t have 2 worry about illegal arrest… They just leave it to the courts 2 later figure out whether they were right to arrest… By that time, the damage is done… If the police make a mistake, well, how many times have u heard of a police officer going to jail for arresting someone without a warrant? I never have… They have nothing 2 lose by violating our rights. Probable cause, a subjective term, always seems 2 win in the Sup Ct. If the state deosn’t like our religion (& they definitely don’t) &/or our politics, they do what they want & get away with it… And if you think its not happening, you are really naive. I know of several cases where due process was denied like this…
Anyway, i feel the supreme ct. should be made up of ordinary citizens… The people themselves should rule on these kinds of decisions… like Roe v Wade, etc…
Anyway, God bless…
 
JimG said:
Wasn’t the original legislation’s purpose really to force a review of Roe? My understanding was that the pro-choice contingent made a decision to keep it out of the courts and instead force a referendum on the law, which was then overturned by 56% to 44 %.

What’s remarkable to me is that here is the most restrictive abortion law ever, and still it was supported by 44% of the people. I think that’s a sign that the country is actually becoming more pro-life. A law which allowed abortion in only very limited circumstances would stand a good chance of passage while in effect stopping most abortions that are actually done.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but I do have to correct you in one regard - it was supported by 44% of the people of a conservative state. So, if only 44% of the people in a conservative state are opposed to abortion, the actual percentage of the entire US population that is against abortion is probably significantly lower…😦

I think the pro-life movement has gained some ground, but I think there is a huge challenge ahead of us, especially since the Democrats have now taken over Congress and are about to take the presidency. This means that the abortionists will be flooded with money and government support, and we will have to fight much harder to win the war of ideas. That’s okay though; God is on our side! 👍
 
francesco920 said:
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but I do have to correct you in one regard - it was supported by 44% of the people of a conservative state. So, if only 44% of the people in a conservative state are opposed to abortion, the actual percentage of the entire US population that is against abortion is probably significantly lower…😦

I think the pro-life movement has gained some ground, but I think there is a huge challenge ahead of us, especially since the Democrats have now taken over Congress and are about to take the presidency. This means that the abortionists will be flooded with money and government support, and we will have to fight much harder to win the war of ideas. That’s okay though; God is on our side! 👍
Click to expand...
i don’t understand how anyone can justify abortion ifwhen he/she really thinks about it. Its either murder or its not and if it is, why is it legal?? And Why wasn’t the Roe v Wade thing voted on by the people? Why are a lot of things in this country not voted on? I don’t believe we are really much of a democracy… I feel we have all been lied to all our lives…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top