The House passed the bill 47-22 on Feb. 9 and the Senate approved the measure 23-12 Wednesday. Both chambers rejected amendments that would have provided provide exceptions for rape or incest or to protect the health of a pregnant woman.
The bill does have to go back to the House because a Senate committee amended it to include a legislative "finding" that the state Constitution's guarantee of due process of "Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings" and the finding from two years ago that under the South Dakota Constitution both a pregnant mother and her unborn child "possess a natural and inalienable right to life." The House is expected to accept the modification and it is anticipated Rounds will get the bill on his desk as early as the week of Feb. 27. The governor has not given a clear indication whether he intends to sign the bill. The state's Legislative Research Council has estimated it would cost $1 million to fight the anticipated litigation over the law's constitutionality. That is double the estimate from the bill Rounds vetoed two years ago.
The anti-abortion members of the task force also introduced a bill that would have required schools in South Dakota to teach abstinence-based sex education without providing instruction in the use of contraceptive drugs, devices, or methods. That bill passed the House but died in a Senate committee. The House did kill a provision of a bill that would have made it a crime for a school employee to refer or accompany a student for family planning services. And, for the second year in a row, the Legislature killed a bill requiring health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
One thing can be said so far about South Dakota's role in the abortion wars. At least it has been wars of words and paper, not violent acts. Still, the burning desire to see this legislation lead to a court challenge was reflected in one other action during this week's debate: the Senate rejected an amendment calling for the bill to be submitted to the voters of South Dakota. We shouldn't feel too deprived, though. After all, thanks to last year's Legislature, we get to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Sallie
How sad. Abortion is a medical issue - not a political football - and not a religious viewpoint that must be imposed on everyone. It's astonishing - since a clear majority of the American people are Pro-Choice - that this kind of thing is taking place.
2 - suffraget
Women did not fight enough and
today we have a weak and not sporty
cannot-withstand_even the_first-punch
decoy of a real male as highest court judge.
Hit and punch this ridiculous decoy harder!
3 - Peter Simons
aBORTION SHOULD BE A PRIVATE ZrELIGIOUS mATTER.
wE DO NOT NEED LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE
4 - John
The women of this country have only themselves to blame for the deterioration of the their reproductives rights. If you don't like what is being handed down to you vote those legislators out of office. If you are not willing to do that, don't complain.
5 - Christ-Follower
You know, you can call it "privacy", you can call it "a medical issue" or "simple procedure" but in the end, it's just murder.
Thank God Almighty that one state has the respect and humility to ban the murder of babies. Way to go, South Dakota!
Hopefully, this country will soon recognize that ALL it's citizens are precious and stop allowing the wholesale slaughter of millions of babies, each year and OVERTURN ROV v. WADE!
6 - Mark Schannon
Christ-Follower: One question. Do you support the death penalty?
If, as I suspect, the answer's yes, can you cite Scripture where Jesus supports the death penalty? And how do you handle "Let thee who are without sin cast the first stone," and other quotes that suggest Jesus would be horrified by our barbaric practice banned in virtually every civilized country.
As for the SD bill, it's not surprising. In fact, it was inevitable that someone would try to get this issue in front of the Supreme Court now that we have two Dubya candidates there.
In Jamesons Veritas
7 - Herr Jurgan
Science has come a long way since RVW. Comparitively, what is now understood concerning conception, organic chemistry etc... makes the scientific era which RVW emerged as a social issue seem almost Victorian technological. It is a fact that what was then considered "not human tissue" is actually today highly sought after by commercial research labs and chemical companies.
The basis of RVW was that this was not human, did not have life, was not of value. When in fact (based on the going price of post aborted fetuses and tissue) the product of the abortion is considered necessary for testing compounds and products which are ultimately marketed for human use.
This is a most interesting debate, on that point alone. The political and religious, pro/con, left/right opinions aside; the fact remains that the human tissue after product of an abortion, at any stage of pregnancy adds value to the production of medicines, cosmetics, preservatives and many other products of commercial value.
The event horizon of genitics is on the horizon, how much more viable are those same tissues going to be on the open market, or even the black market. The sources don't necessarily have to be aborted tissues, they can also be derived from living persons. There are already rumors of prisoners in countries who are executed and used for laboratory study. Could a whole underground system of tissue "donors" be emerging? Would an extension of aborted tissue for study be a black market in human trade?
It's too terrible to even consider.
I believe the whole issue is larger than just some political movements towards banning the procedures. Look beyond the obvious, and consider the larger picture.
8 - What A Crock
I assume South Dakota is also going to step up to the plate and provide every single child with excellent medical care, nutrition and education?
If so, they'll be bucking the Bush administration, who just cut children's medical benefits, school lunch programs and education by 25%.
Thanks to this "caring, Christian administration, the infant mortality rate went up in the USA for the first time in 40 years. By EIGHT PERCENT. "Pro-lifers" *love* fetuses until they're born. After that, they have to fend for themselves.
We rank 28th out of 37 nations in infant mortality. Unless someone is willing to put their wallet where their loud mouth is and take decent care of these kids once they're born, they have no reason to feel all self-righteously smug about being "pro life."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/now/dec10/apha_infant.html
9 - I support Ms. Schlafly
Thank God Almighty that one state is willing to stand up to the radical feminists !
10 - Moving to Canada
According to Bush and his cronies: If you support abortion rights you're a murderer. If you don't support the war in Iraq, you're a traitor. So, abortion is not okay. But it's okay to bomb the crap out of thousands of Iraquis and kill them?
Just checking. Cause that sounds sort of... gasp!... hypocritical.
Nawwwww.....
11 - Whitewolf
Boring: listening to intrenched opposites throw their absolutes in each other's faces.
Interesting: thinking about a problem in a new way. Here's some fertilizer:
Some argue about when "life begins." Life doesn't begin. Life continues. The life of the Mother and the life of the Father come together when the egg and the sperm come together. Life just is. (Are you thinking this is an anti-abortion position? Keep thinking). Some ask, "is it human" - it has human DNA, what else? Some call abortion "murder." Is it killing? It's killing. Is all killing murder? No.
Abortion can be: a tragedy, a relief, a freedom, an everlasting regret, a liberation, a wise decision, a rash decision ... a good idea, a bad idea, legal, illegal, but ...
think about this ...
The power to give birth belongs to Woman; what power belongs to Man? Who has the right to make a decision about what a woman's body is allowed to do? Who has the right to make a decision about what a man's body is allowed to do? Hmmm.
12 - CC
The power that belongs to man is to be a co-creator of life. Who should have a right to decides what a particular person's body should be allowed to do, is that particular person's decision ALONE. The problem arises when we think we should have the right to control what another's body does.
#5 Do you think that Roe v. Wade 'allowed' abortions to occur or that the overturning will 'disallow' it? Seriously mistaken.
(I'm not saying we should have no laws, b
13 - CC
whoops- b/c people don't follow them, I'm saying this law was passed to protect thousands of women's lives & health that were in danger b/c they were getting abortions regardless of the law- this logic does not apply to murder, so please don't go there, even if you think abortion is murder).
14 - CC
I'm confused, its almost like the task force WANTS abortions to occur, with the 'no contraception' education recommendation and all. Wouldn't the number of abortions actually increase with that? How weird. Maybe they think abstinence will actually work.
15 - Bing
You so called "choice" people just don't get it and you never will.
It's not about "your body" or "taking women's rights away."
It's about the person inside the woman and his or her rights. Yes it's a person!
That person should have the right to live and not be killed because his mother's lifestyle may be cramped. Yes most abortions are not a matter of life and death but a matter of the mother not wanting to alter her lifestyle.
There is nothing more precious than human life, especially the life of an innocent baby who has never harmed anyone and any reasonable decent person would value this life more than the concerns that the mother's lifestyle may change.
You guys are on the losing side as most Americans do not share your glee for infanticide. South Dakota was the opening shot. You guys had better get ready for war as we will no longer stand aside and allow the infanticide continue. You will not be allowed to conduct your infanticide for profit any longer. You WILL be defeated!
16 - Victor Plenty
The preciousness of life begins at conception and ends at birth, in the minds of too many. When right-wingers hear about human lives snuffed out by poverty, war, and starvation, what's the response? "Cry me a river, you bleeding-heart liberal."
If only the post-born could inspire the same heartfelt compassion and energetic campaigning the right-wingers are willing to put forth on behalf of the pre-born, we could have had paradise on earth by now.
Instead we have yet more useless partisan infighting over laws doomed to utterly fail to end abortion. They might make abortion more dangerous and unpleasant, but they will fail to prevent abortion from happening. They may even cause the number of abortions to increase, making the plaintive cries of "nothing more precious than human life" ring even more hollow.
17 - Mark
How long do pro-choice people think you're going to be in the majority? You're whole viewpoint dictates that you will at best last two or three generations. Pro-life people are reproducing left and right, while you choose to either contracept or abort your children. We pro-lifers will eventually come out on top because A.) we are right and B.) we will gradually make up a greater and greater percentage of the population. Our numbers grow exponentially while your dwindle through your selfish, immediate gratification with no consequences lifestyle. Enjoy the last few years of your viewpoints existence. When you are eighty five and spewing your pro-choice, reproductive rights, infanticide nonsense, the children around you will laugh at your antiquity and smile sadly at your senility and delusions, not fully realizing how dangerous they once were nor how many millions of children those beliefs murdered as they slept in their mothers wombs.
18 - Mark
Where do these claims come from that pro-life people dont care for the poor or starving? Its one thing when a person is forgotten about by the world and unfortunate enough to live in an impoverished nation, and another when there is a law passed which legalized the direct killing of a child. Also, I do not agree with the death penalty, but I at least understand the reasoning and make the distinction that those are people who have commited a grave crimes. Its a big difference from unborn children.
19 - Mark
Abstinence does work and always has worked and always will work. The only reason it is dismissed today is that any attempt to tell someone to control themselves is met with violent hostility and outrage. Imagine...to think that a person could actually go without having sex until their ready...its...its...its...its just unAmerican is what it is! Abortion is just irresponsible people's ways of covering their tracks.
20 - Lisa McKay
Mark, I have no idea how old you are, but abortion is not a recent invention, nor is it strictly a product of modern attitudes toward sex. Women have been terminating pregnancies for many, many generations, sometimes because they had no access to contraception, sometimes because women in some eras and cultures were not empowered even within marriage to say 'no', often because crushing poverty made the prospect of feeding another mouth untenable, and always because for whatever reason, the woman was simply not prepared to bring another child into the world.
The bottom line is that a woman's reproductive choice is her own business, not yours, not South Dakota's, and not mine. I would prefer to see a world in which every child conceived is welcomed by parents who are emotionally, financially, and physically prepared to raise it, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
21 - RogerMDillon
"Abstinence does work"
Mark, just because women don't want to have sex with you doesn't mean you get to call it abstinence by default.
22 - CC
#15 No, that's actually not the central issue- although it is for you b/c you choose it to be. Many women who choose to have abortions are pro-life until they get into a situation in which they feel they need one. So ask someone in a situation if they feel that is the central issue.
Limiting your discussion to only this issue is counterproductive & pointless.
As for your little war, BRING IT ON!!! We won't lose b/c abortions will NEVER stop- even if you outlaw them. You act like the anti-choice community hasn't been trying to limit & slowly chip away at CHOICE since Roe was passed, they have & we have been fighting them every step of the way. Where have YOU been for the last 30+ years? Since according to scientific questionnares show the majority of Americans are pro-choice with some restrictions on abortion, it will be a wake up call for them & they will fight you. What will most likely happen is you will draw out the millions of sleeping giants that are unaware of your sneeky stealth tactics. Overturn Roe? REALLY stuiped move! Good luck b/c you are gonna need it.
BTW- cheap shot with the glee thing
That's like saying you have glee when women die or are maimed from botched illegal abortions. Is this true? I certainly hope not.
23 - CC
#17
Certainly you are not advocating that pro-life disposition is an inherited trait? Children ALWAYS adopt the views their parents have? Ridiculous!
So is your argument that if pro-life people over breed and do nothing to improve their financial familial situations, that will spawn more pro-life people? Actually, most evidence shows the larger the family, the poorer quality of life for ALL members of that family- that kind of poverty and misery(unless you have unlimited income & resources to support a large family- which most of us don't) will most likely turn your little darlings into rational people who will then see the need to use family planning(including birth control) to limit their family size and better their overall situation. That tactic is dumber than trying to convice people to be ONLY abstinent.
#19 Can we see this evidence that 'abstinence ONLY' works? B/c according to numerous scientific studies I have seen, its only moderately successful as compared to comprehensive sex education.
Look at Why has the teenage pregnancy rate declined in the U.S.?
24 - CC
#19[Abstinence does work and always has worked and always will work. The only reason it is dismissed today is that any attempt to tell someone to control themselves is met with violent hostility and outrage. Imagine...to think that a person could actually go without having sex until their ready...its...its...its...its just unAmerican is what it is! Abortion is just irresponsible people's ways of covering their tracks]
You're GD right its meant with hostility & outrage- its MY FREAKIN' BODY to control! Why don't YOU try to 'control' your urges to tell people what to do. That is so unbelievably arrogant & presumptuous to think you GET a say.
Hostility & Outrage- your damn right. As for 'violent' hostility- no thanks, I'll leave that one to the anti-choicers who bomb family planning clinics & harass them, their families (including their children), and their clients.
What if the person is NEVER ready to have children- never, ever, ever have sex? That is your big solution? That is really unrealistic & unfair. We are humans and unlike other animals, we have sex for a multitude of reasons- not just for procreation. Hey- don't do anything, b/c X might happen. Ridiculous way to live your life.
25 - CC
And insisting others shouldn't have sex unless it meets your criteria is just judgemental & self-righteous people's way of trying to play god. Get over yourselves!