[DallasJ7]

This surprised me a bit, given that the abortion ban easily passed the SD House and that a stricter version passed both houses last year (but was killed by voters on election day). It should be noted that the Dems picked up 5 seats in the SD Senate last November, but it seems that this is being killed with the help of Senate Republicans.

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).

[Calpernia]

ping

[Abathar]

And the DUmmies rejoice.....

[Alter Kaker]

It should be noted that the Dems picked up 5 seats in the SD Senate last November, but it seems that this is being killed with the help of Senate Republicans.

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.

[frogjerk]

with exceptions for rape, incest, and mother's life

That's right...rape and incest babies don't deserve to be born into this world because of the crimes they committed. -sarc

[The Great RJ]

...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,”

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.

[Wuli]

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.

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

[Coleus]

The National Right to Life worked with NARAL & NOW AGAINST South Dakota's anti-abortion Bill

National Right to Life accused of complicity with the other side

Pro-life groups divide over abortion ban

Right to Life Leader Helps Pro-Abortion Folks Defeat Bill to Criminalize Abortion (Our Sad Times)

On Google

[Lexinom]

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.

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.

[MountainFlower]

Do NOT despair! It is NOT over!!
Stay tuned for further updates!
::grin::
Come on, guys, we don't give up that easily!!!

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