Posted on 03/09/2006 10:06:36 AM PST by wagglebee
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota, March 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota (PPMNS) said it will defy a law passed Monday that bans all abortions in the state.
“We will not abandon the women of South Dakota,” said Sarah Stoesz, PPMNS President and CEO, according to a release. “Our clinics in South Dakota will remain open and we will continue to serve the women and men of this state by providing family planning services, emergency contraception, and safe, legal abortion care.”
On Monday, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law the first abortion ban in the United States since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision. The bill, House Bill 1215, passed with strong bi-partisan support in both houses and makes abortion a felony in the state, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. It is to go into effect this July.
Stoesz also vowed to challenge the new law in court. “Planned Parenthood will challenge this law in order to protect the health and rights of the women and families we serve,” she said.
Meanwhile, a South Dakota pro-life advocate who was instrumental in promoting the law there was the victim of harassment and vandalism. Leslee Unruh, who founded the Alpha Center to encourage pregnant women to choose life, told Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink news that her family has become a target from pro-abortion zealots.
Unruh related to CitizenLink how her home has been splattered with eggs and that coat hangers have been left in their mailbox. Her husband’s chiropractic office has also been targeted by pro-aborts leaving dead animals on the grounds, with some employees afraid to come into work. She was even told by her favorite coffee shop not to come back.
“They said, ‘We have a choice as to who we serve, and we choose not to serve you,’” she related. “They were careful to emphasize the word ‘choice.’”
See CitizenLink coverage:
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039731.cfm
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion Ban Signed into Law by South Dakota Governor
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030603.html
Complete Ban on Abortion Passes South Dakota Legislature, goes to Governor
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022304.html
OK, the law states that Doctors may not perform abortions in the state of south dakota, that means Minnesota doctors cannot legally perform them either.
Do rights come from the Constitution or from God? If God, then does He give us the right to murder unborn children?
We NEVER have the right to do evil.
You are correct.
to finish.... Minnesota doctors cannot perform them in SD.
Doctors in South Dakota don't want the stigma of being called a baby killer affect their regular practice.
**
I hope it's contagious to other states.
If things had been left up to the courts, we would have had slavery well into the 20th century.
I am going to defy the law in Georgia that prohibits me from taking money that does not belong to me.
Overturning Roe v Wade would not ban abortion nationwide.. it would allow the states to choose.. plain and simple..
In 1973 only 18 states had permissive abortion laws, the remaining 32 either outright banned it or had life/rape/incest exceptions..
an overturn simply turns it back to the states....
>>>Which party does this law punish. The mother, the doctor or both?
>The mother of what? You have to have a child to be a mother. If you consider it a child, then abortion is murder.
Not sure how that answers my question, but apparently the SD legislature doesn't consider it to be murder. That is unless a sentence maxing out at 5 years is typical for murder there.
None of these so-called "doctors" are going to risk anything. They're in it for the easy money, risk-free. I have more respect for a Mafia hit man.
Ummmm... actually, that's about all they do.
Actually, that authority is never given to the courts in the Constitution either. The SCOTUS seized that power with Marbury v. Madison.
I had not thought of it that way, but you are right, those doctors are money hungry butchers.
We can't overturn one of those sacred precedents, you know, not even if it makes us look like nine stupid horses' a---s in black robes.
The status quo is not "let each state decide". If it were, Roe v. Wade would not have struck down state laws. That said, I doubt that Roe v. Wade will be overturned even if, as some people say, Bush is able to appoint someone else to the court prior to the challenge being heard. Why? Because, while Alito seems to be pretty solidly pro-life, Roberts seems tenuous. I doubt that he would actually vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Uh, you seriously need to get up to date on the law. Please see Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), Ohio v Akron Ctr for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
The SCOTUS has essentially put the matter back in the states' hands. Roe v. Wade as it was originally decided in 1973 doesn't even exist anymore, large parts of it having been supplanted by new case law.
ABSOLUTELY. Maybe it's time for state governments to start using a little "civil disobedience" of their own (if that's the proper phrase) & completely ignore the SCOTUS when or if they do strike down the South Dakota law. Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something to the effect of "...let them enforce it" re: the SCOTUS?
The states need to begin to assert their 10th Amendment right to govern themselves for a change!
A sharp entrepeneur could probably make a quick buck just running a daily bus line to the nearest clinic across state lines.
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.