Posted on 03/22/2004 9:50:03 AM PST by chance33_98
So when they want to stop a Bill it is killing it, when they want to stop a baby from being born they call it 'abortion'. Hmmmm.
Darned good quotation.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Some hesitation on abortion-ban bill
By BOB MERCER, Republic Capitol Correspondent
PIERRE - Key lawmakers, top aides to the governor and several representatives of organizations that oppose abortion huddled in a closed-door meeting Thursday evening at the state Capitol. They privately discussed whether or not to proceed toward final passage of legislation next week that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota.
After the meeting, the measures prime sponsor, Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, said he would oppose any attempt to pull back.
Im committed to the bill in its present form. Its moving forward, McCaulley said. It says South Dakota is not going to wait. Were going to lead the country by protecting unborn life in our jurisdiction.
The legislation, HB 1191, has already won approval in the House of Representatives. It is scheduled for a hearing Saturday morning before the Senate State Affairs Committee. But the question of whether to continue pushing for passage of the legislation has split abortion opponents in the Legislature.
One group, led by McCaulley, wants to push ahead in the hope that the law would force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. One of their arguments is that some members of the court might change before a South Dakota challenge reached there in the next three years or so.
The other group sees no chance of the Supreme Courts current membership reversing itself and doesnt want a defeat that would further cement the Roe vs. Wade decision into place. That cluster of lawmakers includes Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, a long-time leader in the state and national Right to Life anti-abortion organizations.
South Dakota Right to Life does not support HB 1191 in its current form, but we are working to get it into an acceptable format that will truly protect lives, Rachel Hansen, the state organizations executive director, said after the meeting. The organization previously had simply taken a right idea, wrong time position.
One of the suggestions under consideration by some senators is an amendment supported by Right to Life that would remove the bills criminal language. The bill currently seeks to make performance of an abortion a Class 5 felony.
What would be offered instead is a new sentence modifying South Dakotas informed-consent law, so that the physician or agent must certify in writing that the woman had received the information already required under law and that she had sufficient time to review and understand it.
The other main concept of McCaulleys legislation - that life begins at conception and that unborn life should receive the same protection of law as born life - would continue to be reflected in the amendment. But there are many substantial differences in the language and the statements about that concept between the House-passed bill and the amendment.
McCaulley was firm in his dislike for the possible amendment.
Theres two parts to 1191: What we believe, and what were going to do about it. I would view any attempt to remove what were going to do about our beliefs as an unfriendly amendment, McCaulley said.
Beside McCaulley and Duenwald, others observed entering or leaving the meeting were Jamison Rounds, a brother of and a top aide to Gov. Mike Rounds; Brent Wilbur, a private attorney who also serves as legal counsel to the governor on various issues; Sen Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, the bills lead sponsor in the Senate; Senate Republican leader Eric Bogue, of Faith; and the assistant GOP leader, Sen. Mac McCracken, R-Rapid City; as well as several other legislators and lobbyists.
Eighteen senators - 15 Republicans and three Democrats - signed as co-sponsors of the original legislation, the exact number needed for passage. Three of them - Bogue, McCracken and Sen. Drue Vitter, R-Hill City - are among the nine senators on the state affairs committee that will hear the bill.
I don't know how NRL is organized or if it's officials are well paid professionals, but I am familiar to some extent with NRA of which I have been a member for decades. I am convinced that the higher level officials of NRA are far more interested in keeping their well paid positions than in achieving the stated goals of the organization and it's membership. I am not saying that is the case with NRL, or the reason for what happened in SD, but it is one possibility.
Excellent observation. I didn't know NRA was that bad.
Tell that to the babies being aborted in the mills! Not another dime to the Right To Life movement.
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
That's one of the most sarcastic, pessimistic, defeatest comments I've ever seen.
And given this article, may actually be spot-on, sadly.
This is really sickening. It would be like MADD helping defeat a bill to outlaw underage drinking (weak analogy but makes the point).
Well, maybe I overstated the degree of the problem a little. I think the NRA is still the most effective pro-gun lobbying org out there even though some of it's strategies seem questionable, at least to me they do. But it isn't arguable that we gun owners are in a better position in relation to our 2nd Amendment rights than we would be without the NRA's efforts over the last 4 decades. So, I suppose I will continue to send in my annual dues and hope for the best.
Even so, I don't think anyone can deny that the paid leadership of all such special interest organizations has a vested interest in keeping the outcome of the controversy in perpetual doubt. It only makes sense. Once the issue is resolved one way or the other, there is no more need for their services.
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.