South Dakota House Passes Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Challenge to Roe vs. Wade

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[chance33_98]

South Dakota House Passes Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Challenge to Roe vs. Wade

/11/04 11:31:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Legal and Congressional Reporters

Contact: Brian Burch of the Thomas More Law Center, 734-827-2001

ANN ARBOR, Mich., Feb. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- After over two hours of emotional debate, the South Dakota House last night overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1191, 54 to 14. The Bill establishes that life begins at conception and would outlaw abortions in the state making the practice a five year felony. The Bill is designed to have the U.S. Supreme Court reconsider its 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortions nationwide.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan worked closely with South Dakota Rep. Matt McCaulley, chief sponsor of HB 1191, for the last several months both in the drafting and legal strategy of the bill.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated. "This is new and unique legislation that has never been considered by the Supreme Court. The Law Center and our Associate Counsel, Harold Cassidy, are pleased we could be of assistance to Matt McCaulley and South Dakota in their efforts to protect the unborn. While we cannot predict the future, we do know that this legislation establishes significant facts that the courts will not be able to ignore."

Rep. McCaulley agreed. "Abortion is an important moral issue that transcends party lines. Protecting unborn human life is something the vast majority of South Dakota residents support, and Democrats and Republicans joined together and passed a bill that will protect unborn human life in our state. We are ready to fight for the right to life, as opposed to waiting for it."

In the preamble to HB1191, the legislature determined that based on the best scientific and medical evidence, life begins at fertilization and that South Dakota's Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings. The Bill also finds that abortions impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother, including significant risk of suicide, depression and other post traumatic disorders.

Approval by the House now sends the bill to the Senate where support continues to be strong. Should South Dakota's pro-life governor sign the bill, the new law would directly confront Roe vs. Wade.

The Bill mandates that physicians make every effort to preserve the life of both the mother and her unborn child. However, it is not a violation of the law if the medical treatment provided to the mother results in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child.

Approval in the full House of Representatives came only days after an emotional and tense hearing in the House State Affairs Committee where members heard testimony from doctors, lawyers and post-abortive women from across the country. With passion and tears, several women recounted their personal grief, severe depression, and thoughts of suicide that came as a result of their abortions. After over four hours of testimony, and strong opposition from Planned Parenthood representatives, committee members passed the bill 11-2, sending it to the House where it was approved on Tuesday.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. The Thomas More Law Center can be reached at 734-827-2001, or visit its Web site at http://www.thomasmore.org.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

[Always Right]

Note that it does not exalt the life of one above the life of the other. The physician is to do what he can to save both, but if he can't, he can't.

The would of had a better chance of success if they just made an exception for the life of the mother. Polls for years and years have shown the majority of people are pro-life once you make the exception for the mother. Besides, there isn't a court in this country that will touch it without a clear exception for the life of the mother.

[Guillermo]

The way I look at it, chopping up a baby is never the answer to a rape.

Not only does she have to live with the fact that she was raped, she also has to live with the fact she killed an innocent human.

[inquest]

It amounts to much the same thing. The problem with phrasing it as an "exception" is that it gives doctors an out. No physician worthy of the name would not attempt to save both, and if he's only able to save one, then it's not an "abortion", just a failed effort.

It's no different, ethically speaking, from those very risky but often necessary operations to separate conjoined twins.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"The would of had a better chance of success if they just made an exception for the life of the mother . . ."

I read about this recently before it was actually passed. That article said there WAS a life-of-the-mother clause. As several have pointed out here, that almost never occurs in actuality; that is not the cause of abortions now.

Also, the rationale for this bill is that Roe v. Wade claimed not to know when life begins. They left a big "loophole" in their logic, and this bill cites the scientific knowledge since Roe v. Wade. In other words, logically the Supreme Court would have to consider this information, since they cited the lack of it in Roe. However, that doesn't mean "raw judicial activism" won't continue to rule.

But this is a fabulous action. It proves the people are not rolling over on this. If the Supreme Court members get the message from real-live people and the Congress and etc. that abortion is unacceptable (as it is presently practiced, for sure), well, they don't want to be on the wrong side of history, do they? I can see comparisons to Mengele, etc . . .

[alkaloid2]

< sarcasm> No, it would be much better to kill the kid resulting from the rape, because it was his fault anyway. Faulty reasoning, that.< /sarcasm>

[Cicero]

Rape is not the child's fault, and there is almost certainly less trauma involved if the mother bears the child and then has it adopted out if she understandably refuses to keep it.

As for life of the mother, that is only a consideration in very rare and exceptional cases. Ectopic pregnancies, for instance, where there is no chance whatever that the baby can be saved. But the problem is like any other. If you declare that the baby is a living human being, then it's like other cases where you have to balance one human life against another. Catholic moral theology declares that if it is unavoidable to kill the unborn child as a side-effect, for example, of doing necessary chemotherapy on a cancer that won't wait, then that's not an abortion, it's a tragic side-effect of a valid therapeutic procedure.

A few mothers have chosen to die rather than accept urgent medical procedures that would result in killing their babies, but terrible choice that should be left up to them.

Going back to the bill, I think it's brilliant. We need to challenge these tyrannical and murderous judges directly, in ever way possible. Under our constitution judges are no better than the other two branches of government. Judges have no armies and no police. They depend on the executive branch to enforce their decisions, and they depend on the legislative branch for their salaries and the funding to run their courts. They should never have been allowed to tyrannize over our free society as they have.

It's long past time to confront them. Judges only have whatever authority the people and the rest of government will allow them. If they abuse their authority, they deserve to lose it. We must have sweeping reform of the judiciary. It's the most pressing single problem in government today.

[gdani]

Bad idea.

If this bill passes into law we all know there will be a lawsuit. Following that, I'd say that there's a 95% chance that a court(s) will strike the law down using Roe v. Wade.

End result -- even more case law establishing the constitutional right to an abortion. In other words, this bill/law will backfire.

Perhaps a more prudent thing to do would be to wait until one or two of the abortion rights crowd retires from the U.S. Supreme Court then go forward.

[inquest]

See #40

[Cobra Scott]

Actually, I've always felt that RvW was a good tool to outlaw abortions. It draws the line at the third trimester. Combined with this sort of reasoning, ie: an update of scientific reason within the statute, the two together are constitutional and could prohibit abortion much earlier.

Like in the 2nd trimester. Or in the first 30 days. Or the first 30 minutes. After all, this is an issue of citizenship, something the left whines about ad nauseum. RoevWade is not a good solid position for the abortionists, for so many reasons, and this is one.

[gdani]

See #40

Saw it. Don't know where you came up with that analysis but it's essentially incorrect.

[inquest]

Nothing in the Constitution gives courts the power to strike down laws. They can only decide cases. Resolving a particular case may involve declaring that a law is invalid, but that declaration really has no direct authority beyond that particular case. Indirectly, of course, it puts pressure on other courts to resolve cases according to the same conclusion, but that's about the extent of the judicial "nullification" power. Everything beyond that is just a result of politicans "going along to get along".

[AMDG&BVMH]

"It's long past time to confront them. Judges only have whatever authority the people and the rest of government will allow them. If they abuse their authority, they deserve to lose it. "

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. Other than impeachment (which the Republidum Party in the Senate would not likely do), are there any other suggested ways to get the judiciary to follow the Constitution?

[Cicero]

I agree with your diagnosis of the problem. Other than impeachment (which the Republidum Party in the Senate would not likely do), are there any other suggested ways to get the judiciary to follow the Constitution?

Not everyone in the forum is fond of Abraham Lincoln. But when Lincoln thought that SCOTUS had made a decision that was out of line, he simply refused to implement it.

One way to deal with it is for legislatures to cut salaries and perks. Another is for executives to refuse to enforce rulings. These are controversial measures, but so are the decisions that would provoke them.

Thus, what would happen if Governor Bush simply sent the police around to the nursing home to protect Linda Schiavo or to remove her to a safe refuge? Would the judges be able to arrest him? Suppose the governor called up the Florida National Guard?

This kind of confrontation happened, for instance, during the school integrations crises of the 50s and 60s. Considering that the majority of the voters appear to be pro-life, even after 30 years of attempted brainwashing by the media, it's likely that they would support this kind of measure, properly justified.

[lawgirl]

GO SD GO! It won't stand I am sure, but it sure takes chutzpah to even do such a thing.

Now, if you want to do a REAL favor for your state, GET LITTLE TOMMY DASCHOLE OUT OF THERE!!!!!

[inquest]

Another method would be for Congress to cut off the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts in matters relating to abortion, or whatever else Congress wants to take out of their hands. Congress is given this power under the Constitution, with respect to both the supreme court and inferior federal courts.

[Coleus]

`

[Salvation]

Did someone tell you that Tom Dashcle is deeply saddened.

[Salvation]

The Deadly Dozen

Catholic Church asks Tom Daschle to stop calling himself a Catholic

Deadly Dozen senator taken to task over claims of Catholicism

THE BISHOP AND THE SENATOR [author links to FR thread regarding Daschle in her online column]

Blood On Their Hands: Exposing Pro-abortion Catholic Politicians

Prelate says politicians who back abortion shouldn't go to Communion

PETITION TO EX-COMMUNICATE PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC ELECTED OFFICIALS

[jwalsh07]

Wow, big kudos to the South Dakotans.

[Reddy]

My neighbor's daughter was a diabetic, with other medical problems IIRC. The daughter and her husband desperately wanted children, but when the daughter got pregnant it sent her into a medical tailspin. She was in ICU trying to get stabilized, she was very ill. The doctors gave her an abortion, and she was able to be transferred out of the ICU that day. The family was devastated at their loss, and later adopted two children. So I guess that RARELY it could be medically necessary. Unfortunately, most abortions done today are repeats, i.e. 2nd, 3rd even 4th abortions on the same person, sadly it is being used for birth control.