Posted on 02/21/2007 11:13:04 AM PST by DallasJ7
PIERRE--An abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother was rejected Wednesday morning by legislative committee in Pierre.
The Senate State Affairs Committee just voted 8 to 1 to kill HB1293 without a vote of the full Senate.
Supporters of the bill can still force the bill out of committee with a one-third vote of the full Senate, but even key supporters of last year’s ban spoke against the measure.
Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark, called abortion “a scourge on South Dakota,” and he called HB1293 a “noble effort.” But he also said the bill would not withstand a court challenge. “I do not believe there is any chance it will,” he said.
Greenfield, who also is chairman of South Dakota Right to Life, is not on the committee, but he testified as an opponent to the new ban.
Sen. Dennis Schmidt, R-Rapid City, is not on the state affairs committee either, but he led off testimony by supporters of the measure, saying the facts that formed the basis of Roe v. Wade have been proven “false and incorrect.”
Most of the committee disagreed.
Sen. Bob Gray, R-Pierre, like Greenfield, voted for last year’s total ban. Gray said he agreed with Greenfield that the bill would not survive the courts.
Senate Republican Leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls, another committee member, said, “The root issue here is the clear unconstitutionality of this bill.”
State Attorney General Larry Long, who helped draft parts of the bill, said he was neither an opponent nor a proponent of the bill. But he did point out problems with the bill. He said, for example, that a woman who conceives a child through incest and gives birth could be prosecuted for incest under existing law, but if the same woman, under the new law, elected to have an abortion she could not be prosecuted.
Sen. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls, the lone dissenting vote on the committee, told lawmakers that an abortion ban, which he favors, will return every year to the Legislature. “It’s not a waste of time,” he said.
It would have made for an interesting court battle, as this version of the bill with exceptions for rape, incest, and mother's life would probably be passed by SD voters in '08 (as opposed to the '06 ban which had no rape or incest clause).
ping
I think the voters sent the message that they don't want their State Senate to be passing bills that they know will be struck down by the Courts, simply for purposes of (totally valid) political grandstanding. While I sympathize with the bill, I wonder why they're doing it if they know it has zero chance of ever going into effect -- especially when there's other business to be done and they're working on taxpayers' dime.
That's a worthwhile message to send.
---yep--if the absolutist zealots keep this up, they'll give the whole state legislature to the Demotraitors--
That's right...rape and incest babies don't deserve to be born into this world because of the crimes they committed. -sarc
Yeah, given the quotes in the article, it appears that's what the SD Senate Repubs are thinking.
I pretty much agree. But after the bill easily went through the House, I thought the bill still had a decent chance, despite the much tighter Repub majority in the Senate (20R-15D I believe).
The total abortion ban passed last year also would also have hit a dead end in the Federal courts. South Dakota is not a wealthy state and the likely millions of dollars needed to mount a challenge in the federal courts would be at the expense of education and other needed areas.
A far better strategy would be to slowly add restrictions making the state's only abortion mill unprofitable to run. While not the knight on the white horse charging in to kill Roe v. Wade, such efforts would stand a far better chance in the federal courts.
I agree with you - but you have to start somewhere, to save the most that you can from the abortion butchers.
In a democracy, advancement get made by changing minds, not whether something is right or wrong or if something makes sense or not.
The election results show that not enough minds have been changed on the few rape & incest pregnancies that happen. That's sad, but why not keep the overwhelming number of kids from being sliced up or acid burned, and let that much of the culture of life sink in with the voting populace before moving on to the next step?
From what I read in the bill, namely: "Nothing in this Act subjects the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty", Mr Long seems to be right. However, I wonder if the clause I quoted was not there (if the pregnant women could be prosecuted as felon), if the bill would pass.
As to:
Senate Republican Leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls, another committee member, said, “The root issue here is the clear unconstitutionality of this bill.”
I am not a lawyer, but for those among us who are, you can read a copy of the bill here:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/bills/HB1293p.htm
You tossed out, "... if the absolutist zealots keep this up, they'll give the whole state legislature to the Demotraitors." Let's look at the substance of your remark. The bill contains exceptions which allow abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother. If that's absolutist thinking to you, we can safely place you in the 'a woman has a right to a dead baby if she chooses, for whatever reason she names' category inhabited by the lownesses such as Senators Boxer, Harkin, Obama, clinton, Lautenberg, Leahy, Kennedy, Dorgan, Murray, etc.
How would you react to a bill which allowed pregnancy termination in cases of rape, incest, and/or the life of the woman, but added provision to do everything possible to try and save the other alive human being involved in the termination who is threatened by the pregnancy termination? ... I'll patiently await your response.
It is important to point out this absurdity. Look at what we have here. The legislative branch is basing it's actions or lack thereof on what it perceives the courts might do. So much for co-equal branches. The Founders did not intend the Legislative (or Executive) Branch to sit in fear and tremble at the thought of what the black-robed ones might do. They are supposed to act independently. Intimidation (whether intentional or not) of one branch by another marks the beginning of the end of the tripartite system.
This is a problem. The one that would pass the Court scrutiny was rejected by voters thanks to an $8Million campaign by PP. The one with the exceptions will not pass Constitutional muster (or the muster of precedent stated by Justice [sic] Blackmun) because advocates would need to explain why a baby conceived through consensual intercourse is "human" while one conceived through rape is not - and therefore not subject to Constitutional protection.
I don't know the way out of this.
and NOW, for the hat trick!??
***
We were there this morning. We were there during the House Committee hearing as well. It was interesting the differences.
While Attorney General Larry Long spoke in both cases, he changed his testimony today. In the House he had not said anything about the problems of someone being tried as a felon.
There were Republicans that voted against this bill. They didn't cite reasons.
Brock Greenfield does not speak for the Pro-Life movement in SD. He spoke double-talk! He said he is against abortion, and agrees with brothers and sisters in Christ that God is in control. He says, however, the Supreme Court is not ready for this.
Brock was asked by Sen Abdullah if he supported the bill last year. He responded NO. He was asked if he would support it next year, and he couldn't answer. He was asked when he thought the Supreme Court might be ready, and his answer for that was lame.
The time is right for SD -- Larry Long is the Attorney General and is working well with the Pro-Life movement. He had little time to re-work this bill before it came to the House committee, and made changes he felt needed to be there to prevent issues at the Supreme Court level. It sounds like there needs to be some more tweeking done, and that can still happen.
This bill would give Kennedy what he said he needed last time. Dr. Patty Gebink's testimony states that "there is no patient - doctor relationship" in the case of abortions! Her testimonty is invaluable. The other conflict Kennedy had was relative to the current exceptions, that were lacking at the time. We believe there is a vote of 5 possible in the Supreme Court. I guess the difference is in who you want to listen to for attorneys...Paul Benjamin Linton, or Jay Sekulow Check out Jay.
Abdullah was right when he told the committee that this IS an important issue and bill. He told them if they were tired they should vote on it to pass because it was present for 3 years now and will be back again and again. He is right!
The request is for you to email the Senators and tell them you are Pro-Life and want the matter discussed on the floor of the Senate. With enough votes, it can be resurrected. They can work out the kinks before it is all over!!
Someone here said the people spoke. Yes, they did...they said they wanted a stop to abortions but with the exceptions. Now they have the exceptions!
To quote Ann Coulter, "Liberals would have no chance of advancing their bizzare policy agenda if Americans were allowed to have a say in the matter. So they manufacture phony unconstitutional rights in which the constitution always sounds suspiciously similar to the idealogical agenda of the ACLU."
"Abortion is the sacrament and Roe V Wade Holy Writ" Ann Coulter.
Let you voice be heard.
Email the SD Senators for PRO-LIFE
It says right in the Bible (paraphrasing)that you are forbidden to kill the child for the sins of the father. What part of that don't they understand?
interestingly, someone emailed me a letter put out in 2002 about NRTL and SDRTL by Thomas Moore Law Center!...we are just seeing a re-run all over again, in their actions and words. someone ought to bump the jukebox so as to UNSTICK the record!
we have a few days to muster the support for a smoke out! Lord, prepare the way.
anyone interested in the LIST of Senators that are supporting the bill, those in the swing vote, and those not?
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.