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 measure’s prime sponsor, Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, said he would oppose any attempt to pull back.
“I’m committed to the bill in its present form. It’s moving forward,” McCaulley said. “It says South Dakota is not going to wait. We’re 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 Court’s current membership reversing itself and doesn’t 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 organization’s 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 bill’s 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 Dakota’s 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 McCaulley’s 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.
“There’s two parts to 1191: What we believe, and what we’re going to do about it. I would view any attempt to remove what we’re 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 bill’s 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.