South Dakota Mulls Bill Outlawing Abortion

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 1/23/04 | Susan Jones

[kattracks]

(CNSNews.com) - A state lawmaker in South Dakota has introduced a bill making abortion a crime unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Rep. Matt McCaulley's bill (House Bill 1191) directly confronts the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which permitted abortion on demand. A majority of state lawmakers have pledged their support.

The Thomas More Law Center, which is providing Rep. McCaulley with legal assistance, said the bill will generate a court battle if it is passed.

But supporters don't see that as a deterrent: "Roe v. Wade was an exercise of raw judicial power, not based on any reasonable interpretation of the Constitutional text," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

"The Roe decision carries the same moral implications as the Dredd Scott decision that upheld slavery, by regarding a segment of our population as non-persons. The Court was wrong then, and the court is wrong now," he said.

"We have a moral responsibility to confront this lawless decision whenever the opportunity presents itself."

McCaulley introduced the bill on Thursday, the 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. "Medical and scientific discoveries over the last 30 years have confirmed that life begins at conception, a question the Roe Court said they could not answer," he said.

The bill would make abortion a crime punishable by up to five years in state prison, but it does include exceptions to protect the life of the mother if continuing the pregnancy would risk maternal death or major impairment.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, support for the legislation has been building over the past few days, with 47 South Dakota representatives and 18 state senators co-sponsoring the bill. It also has the support of majority leaders in both the state house and senate, the Center said.

Once approved, the legislation would ultimately be sent to South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds who has previously said he would protect life under all circumstances.

According to Rep. McCaulley, "This is a decision that should be made by the people in each of the states through their elected representatives, not by nine unelected judges in a courtroom 1,500 miles from the capitol of South Dakota.

"This bill puts South Dakota in the forefront of the nation and says we will lead the fight to protect unborn children."

The Thomas More Law Center describes itself as a defender and promoter of religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities.

[ovrtaxt]

According to Rep. McCaulley, "This is a decision that should be made by the people in each of the states through their elected representatives, not by nine unelected judges in a courtroom 1,500 miles from the capitol of South Dakota.

Absolutely. The nearer the politician, the greater the acoountability.

[kittymyrib]

This must be why Barbara Boxer and her coven were on TV yesterday saying they were introducing a law to protect abortion no matter what the Supreme Court ruled in the future. Fortunately, God is taking the names of these haridans who kill His little ones.

[bobjam]

This from the state that sent Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson to the Senate? Oh, they were sent by the Indian reservations.

[EuroFrog]

One small step for man....One giant leap for mankind.

This is awsome, I dont care how you look at it.

[Baseballguy]

This is John Edwards stance. He believes The state rights over rule any federal concern.


Vote Edwards

[oyez]

What? Desecrate the holy grail of the women's movement?

[BlackbirdSST]

This is John Edwards stance. He believes The state rights over rule any federal concern.

Is that just a campaign slant, or is this something he's known for? Do you know? Blackbird.

[redgolum]

Is this accurate? I imagine if this bill was in the works, the media would be all over this.

Still, I hope it does pass.

[JohnnyZ]

Is that just a campaign slant, or is this something he's known for?

Edwards, Dean, et al, need an excuse to advocate radical pro-abortion policy, gay marriage and gun control in the primary without it coming back to bite them in the red states. It's the new Democrat theme song.

[ken5050]

It was a tough choice on the tube last night..the Dems debate, or, over on C-span..the NARAL dinner, with crazy Kate and Hillary...

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Outstanding!

This needs to become law & start its way through the courts.

By the time it reaches the USSC, probably years from now, the makeup will be different & Roe could be overturned.

Godspeed!

[votelife]

action alert: FReepers need to understand the importance of the Supreme Court. The justices are getting OLD. The Senate is very important, and getting Bush reelected is more important.

Here's a letter I sent W last year.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Sounds like the same argument as twenty-four years ago, yet after 5 Republican appointemnts to the court, a majority is still pro-abort. In fact 3 of the 5 Republican appointees are on record against overturning Roe.

[HapaxLegamenon]

Sounds like the same argument as twenty-four years ago, yet after 5 Republican appointemnts to the court, a majority is still pro-abort. In fact 3 of the 5 Republican appointees are on record against overturning Roe.

[votelife]

it is the same argument. But I'd point out that Bush I had a Senate with 55/56 Dems. Reagan had a Dem Senate when he got Borked. O'Connor was a mistake.

So if Bush can get somewhere like 55 Senators, he seems inclined to push a conservative for the Court. Probably a conservative minority.

Who knows if we'll get a Kennedy or a Scalia, (W has a good track record on appellate court nominations) but with Kerry or whoever, we'll get a Ginsburg.

Choose wisely.