|
Columns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill[quote:f52ef2dbee][b:f52ef2dbee]South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill [/b:f52ef2dbee] PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage. The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12. "It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor. The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions. Bartling and other supporters noted that the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade. President Bush, a Republican and an abortion foe, might also have a chance to appoint a third justice in the next few years, they said. Opponents argued that the measure was too extreme because it would allow abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women. They said abortion should at least be allowed in cases involving rape, incest and a threat to a woman's health. Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure in court if it wins final approval from the Legislature and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds. Rounds, a Republican and a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would "look favorably" on the abortion ban if it would "save life." Other state legislatures are considering similar measures. But South Dakota is the only state so far to pass such an abortion ban, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization in New York and Washington, D.C. [/quote:f52ef2dbee] Who didn't see this coming... Submitted by Harpy (9566 posts) on February 23, 2006 - 1:31am. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
Abortion isn't my favorite topic to discuss. It sort of fits in with discussing religion. But anyway, I've read some more about it and it's been on my mind. So the -only- way, under this legislation, that an abortion would be allowed would be if the woman's life were in jeopardy. If a woman was raped, the victim of incest, etc., they would not legally be able to abort the fetus. Pretty heartless, IMO.
But, take it a step further -- The rapist would have [u:552c22cd9e]parental rights[/u:552c22cd9e] according to the law... Think about that a second or two.
Seriously, I have to wonder about the people who pass and propose these bills. Regardless of my personal opinion regarding abortion itself, it's not my place to make the decision for another.
[shakes her head]
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
Have we learned NOTHING from Margaret Atwood? Sigh.
We're all heading towards a future in The Handmaid's Tale, I'm telling you. Yikes!
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
I'm curious, what's the difference between being raped and being a victim of incest? Because surely if you're raped by a member of your family, it's still rape. Right? But if you consent to having sex with a family member then it's not rape is it? So you're not a victim. It's still incest but if you want to have a child by your brother or something and he didn't rape you, how are you a victim?
Basically, what I'm trying to ask is, why is there a whole category for victims of incestuous rape? Are there separate laws regarding it or something?
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
[quote:7bf4f43532="a_peanut"]I'm curious, what's the difference between being raped and being a victim of incest? Because surely if you're raped by a member of your family, it's still rape. Right? But if you consent to having sex with a family member then it's not rape is it? So you're not a victim. It's still incest but if you want to have a child by your brother or something and he didn't rape you, how are you a victim?
Basically, what I'm trying to ask is, why is there a whole category for victims of incestuous rape? Are there separate laws regarding it or something?[/quote:7bf4f43532]
It's true that you're not necessarily a victim (although the reasons for the relationship are highly suspect on the mental health front), but children born from incestuous relationships have a much higher risk of physical or mental abnormalities due to genetic defects. In non-relative situations, a genetic defect in one parent does not guarantee the child will inherit it; in relative situations, the percentages are (obviously) much higher. Incest is illegal in most areas for this reason, although specific legal parameters vary wildly.
Also, there's the inherent social stigma associated with being a child born from incest, or bearing a child from an incestuous relationship. In that regard, the taboo nature of the "crime" makes "victims" out of those involved.
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
Oh, I wasn't trying to make them unique or seperate incest from rape. I was thinking along the lines of birth defects which are normally associated with children born from the same bloodline, I just did a poor job wording it and being clear. Sorry about that.
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
It's ok LesKidd, I wasn't just referring to your post, there was mention of incest in the article too :)
[quote:17ca0485b5="koma"]Also, there's the inherent social stigma associated with being a child born from incest, or bearing a child from an incestuous relationship. In that regard, the taboo nature of the "crime" makes "victims" out of those involved.[/quote:17ca0485b5]
Very true.
I know that disabilities mental and phyical are more likely the closer the parents are related but they also occur in non incestuous relationships. So it surprises me that that would be grounds for abortion. Obviously if the child has no chance of survival and will only cause trauma to the mother.... Sorry, I don't really know what point I'm trying to make....
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
[quote:edc6081ed1="a_peanut"]I know that disabilities mental and phyical are more likely the closer the parents are related but they also occur in non incestuous relationships. So it surprises me that that would be grounds for abortion. Obviously if the child has no chance of survival and will only cause trauma to the mother.... Sorry, I don't really know what point I'm trying to make....[/quote:edc6081ed1]
Well I think it comes down to giving [i:edc6081ed1]all[/i:edc6081ed1] women a choice, and trusting their free will to decide what is best for them and their unborn hodgepodge of cellular material. ;) But IMHO it helps the pro-choice cause to mention the more extreme cases where abortion would be used, such as rape or health concerns (either for the mother or baby).
So I don't think incest is automatic grounds for an abortion per se, but the option should be there.
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
imho the option should always be there, regardless of circumstance.
i'm up in Canada and, frankly, I haven't heard heads or tails of this. I'm pretty shocked that this has actually been set in motion. It really makes me wonder just how far back the Bush Administration has set the United States. If they can attack a system of reproductive freedom that has been in place for 30 some odd years, I can't imagine what else they're capable of.
It seems like we're continually having to fight old battles, a lot of them ones we thought were over with for good.
Right now up North we're waiting for Stephen Harper (newly elected conservative prime minister) to table Canada's Civil Marriage Act (aka same sex marriage) for another vote, potentially overturning it. I had hoped that Canadians had learned a lesson from the swarm of Republicans that have taken over political power within the United States, but apparently we haven't learned that lesson.
Sorry to go slightly off topic, but what strikes me about this more than anything is just how insanely [b:57aa1923f9]backwards[/b:57aa1923f9] it is from where I thought we were all headed. I remember San Francisco lined up to town hall with gay couples getting delivered flowers as they waited to get married. I had such a sense then of progress.
Now this is all about Roe vs. Wade, back in the 70's, and up here we're waiting around to see what rights we'll all have next year despite such a sensation of victory only months ago.
In terms of liberals vs. republicans, this is one hell of a backlash.
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
And the governor of S Dakota just signed the legislation as law.
Let the backlash and onslaught begin. :|
South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill
I thought the most interesting part of the legislation (which will be hung up in court challenges for years btw) was that it made no exception for non-life threatening health issues. I can just see this slippery slope now, with states suing doctors for using their medical judgment in determining what "life threatening" means.
We are looking at women who potentially could be [i:f269e1a8bb]forced[/i:f269e1a8bb] into a lifetime of health problems (infertility, scarring, internal injuries, heart problems, and other pregnancy-related health concerns). This is in addition to the rape/incest part of the law that we previously discussed.
This is a dark day for women's rights indeed. :(