Posted on 02/27/2004 7:32:44 AM PST by jmstein7
The fate of a bill to ban almost all abortions in South Dakota is in the hands of Gov. Mike Rounds.
The state House of Representatives voted 54-15 Wednesday to accept the language the state Senate passed the previous day.
Rounds has not decided whether to sign or veto the bill, according to his press secretary, Mark Johnston.
"He will take the full time allotted to him to review the bill in its entirety," Johnston said.
Rounds was in budget meetings with the House and Senate appropriations committee chairmen Wednesday afternoon and did not react publicly to the final vote on HB1191.
When Rounds gets the bill, he will have five days to veto the bill. If he signs the bill in that time or if he lets the deadline pass without signing the bill, HB1191 will become law.
Throughout the seven-week legislative session, the governor has avoided taking a detailed position on HB1191 and said he has not read any version of the bill. He attended discussions among legislators on HB1191 but said he did not participate.
Rounds will get the bill after both the House speaker and Senate president sign it. That had not happened by Wednesday.
The five-day time frame includes weekends and holidays. Lawmakers are expected to wrap up their business Friday, but that could stretch into Saturday. So, Rounds will have to make his decision sometime next week.
He won't have to tell lawmakers what he has decided until they return for the final day of the 2004 session on Monday, March 15.
HB1191 would ban abortion in nearly every case. Here are its legislated provisions:
* Doctors who perform an abortion could be charged with a class 5 felony, punishable by as much as five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
* Due process of law applies to both born and unborn human beings.
* The life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.
* Abortions terminate the constitutionally protected fundamental interest of the pregnant mother in her relationship with her child.
* Women undergo abortions without fully understanding their rights and without giving informed consent.
* Abortion imposes significant risks to the health and life of women, including depression, suicide issues, post-traumatic stress disorder and, long-term, a higher death rate than experienced by women who carry babies to term.
* HB1191 is not intended to affect contraception.
The House vote on HB1191 Tuesday alleviated the need for a compromise to be struck in a conference committee.
"This reaffirms that the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn life," HB1191 sponsor Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, said in asking his colleagues to agree with the Senate version of the bill.
The state's bill of rights details 27 rights in Article 6 of the state constitution.
HB1191 changed form several times from its Jan. 22 introduction to its final passage Wednesday. All but two of the amendments were the work of its sponsors.
One was a total rewrite, passed by a Senate committee, which did not include a ban on abortion. The full Senate reversed that action Tuesday.
Also on Tuesday, the Senate narrowly passed an amendment to allow for an abortion to protect the health of the mother. That amendment could have led to the demise of HB1191, but McCaulley said he could accept it. The language had been present in HB1191 when he introduced it, but it was removed in a rewrite of the bill adopted by a House committee.
The amendment regarding a woman's health would allow an abortion "if there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
That replaced language that would have required doctors to try to preserve both the life of the mother and her unborn baby. Here is the language that did not pass: "Any licensed physician who provides health care to a pregnant woman shall, in all cases, make every effort to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child."
"The amendment did not substantially alter the intent of the bill, which is to protect unborn human life and at the same time, consider the life of the mother," McCaulley said. "Most of what would rise to that level would be life-threatening. We're not saying that's OK, but we're not criminalizing it."
The bill was crafted to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Its sponsors hope it will lead the court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which said women have the legal right to have an abortion.
Critics have charged that it will likely cost South Dakota taxpayers $1 million in legal fees and that the high court could, in the end, uphold Roe v. Wade and set back the anti-abortion movement.
"I repeat Bob Moran's states' rights' question: Kerry, Edwards, whatcha think?"
Only when it benefits them. They just move the law around at will - they're dictorial.
The Texas Sodomy law went federal. They couldn't dictate from the state.
Critics have charged that it will likely cost South Dakota taxpayers $1 million in legal fees and that the high court could, in the end, uphold Roe v. Wade and set back the anti-abortion movement.
Fascist litigation. Evil minions in the flesh. If anyone disobeys the fascist order, they'll be destroyed in every way possable. Hail Hitler!
America had better wake up. Americas freedoma are at stake.
Some will need extra funding to travel so far. Infant lives will be saved.
This is a small step in the right direction, but the fight has to go on to stop the killing once and for all.
"We support States Rights when the concept helps us enslave negroes."
"We support States Rights when the concept helps us destroy the meaning of marriage."
"We only oppose States Rights when the concept blocks us from killing children."
The law declares that "women don't understand"????
Saving infants is a hate crime.
All those who try to tell them are arrested for being too close to an abortion clinic.
That's how the left protects all their pro-death groups. Make laws to silence the opponent.
To protect the homosexuals, they were trying to get not only hate crimes legislation, but also hate speech laws enacted so no person could speak out against their vile behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.