South Dakota will prosecute abortion docs and restrict access to pills: Gov. Noem

The New York Post ^ | 06.26.2022 | Mark Moore

[Macky Cracklins]

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem on Sunday said her state will prosecute doctors who perform abortions and will work to restrict women’s access to abortion pills.

South Dakota is among 10 states with “trigger laws” that declared abortion a criminal offense immediately upon the US Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that established a women’s right to have the procedure.

Noem, a Republican, said South Dakota will prosecute doctors, not women, who violate its law.

[Macky Cracklins]

If the good people of South Dakota don't like this, come voting time, they have the chance to change it. Same with any state law in any state.

Also, if this is unbearable, and Noem wins again, they can move out, right?

[Erik Latranyi]

CBS reporter Brennan asked if South Dakota would overrule the FDA and decide which drugs state residents can receive.

The hypocrisy of the left is on full display.

The communists were fine when states legalized marijuana even though the FDA has kept it as illegal.

But banning abortion pills when the FDA says they are fine is not acceptable.

[JudyinCanada]

Such a wonderful thing the SCOTUS has paved the way for - all the red states can wave goodbye to many of their libs! They can finally segregate all the dems into their owns states! Hosta la vista, psychos!

[DoodleDawg]

“We’ll continue to have those debates on how we can support these mothers and what it means to really make sure we are not prosecuting mothers ever in a situation like this,” Noem said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” “[Prosecution] will always be focused toward those doctors who knowingly break the law to perform abortions in our state.”

Wny not prosecute the mother as well? She certainly isn't an innocent party in this so why the free ride?

[cuban leaf]

That whole argument about people moving out is the reality that this nation has been since the day it was founded. And, after 46 years in seattle, that’s exactly what I did. 11 years ago I moved to Kentucky because I realized I couldn’t change Seattle and it was an unbearable place to live because of what the government was becoming there and, at a more personal level, having to deal with the very people that supported that government with their votes.

I moved from a state where my vote doesn’t count to another state where my vote doesn’t count, but for the exact opposite reason. 😀

And these people can do the same if they think abortion being illegal is that important of an issue to them. 😏

[Alberta's Child]

1. The doctor is in a much weaker position to make a case for personal liberty.

2. A pregnant woman is often acting under duress.

3. The state already regulates medical professionals.

[DoodleDawg]

1. The doctor is in a much weaker position to make a case for personal liberty.

What personal liberty does the woman have in this? The doctor is the willing participant in what now is an illegal act but the woman is the active participant in contracting for that illegal service as well. Can't have one without the other so both should be prosecuted.

2. A pregnant woman is often acting under duress.

Oh please. If duress was an issue then we wouldn't be banning abortion to begin with.

3. The state already regulatlates medical professionals

And prosecutes criminals. If obtaining an abortion is against the law then it's the responsibility of the government to prosecute those breaking it.

[Campion]

The law has traditionally viewed the mother as a secondary victim. She’s not the one collecting the $$$, for one thing.

[DoodleDawg]

The law has traditionally viewed the mother as a secondary victim.

Why should that be the case? Aren't women capable of making decisions on their own and living with the consequences? Either abortion is illegal or it isn't. It's either a crime or it isn't. And if it is then either prosecute all parties or no parties. If I was in the process of buying illegal drugs and the police arrived in the middle of the transaction I guarantee I'd be charged along with the dealer. Why should abortion be different?

She’s not the one collecting the $$$, for one thing.

No, she's paying the $$$.

[Arcadian Empire]

Mothers are being treated as sacred, holy, and untouchable —

— in cases where mothers are murdering their innocent little preborn baby daughters and sons.

That is horrifyingly problematic.

[Arcadian Empire]

Pleas state the basis for the claim of duress.

[Arcadian Empire]

Please explain the rationale for classifying women who murder babies as victims.

[TonyM]

“11 years ago I moved to Kentucky“

Now how about getting rid of McConnell.

[bert]

Think states rights.

The fact the pills are FDA approved does not alter the fact that the pills are poison and induce infanticide.

[Pollard]

I moved from a state where my vote doesn’t count to another state where my vote doesn’t count, but for the exact opposite reason.

Here in MO, it's hard to find info on the candidates. Many don't even bother with a website or social media yet somehow, one person ends up with 80-90% of the vote. I guess it's all word of mouth and not being a native, I'm out of the loop.

[1Old Pro]

The solution is expanded counseling services.

I’ve heard all the hype for the past many days and I have not heard one person who said they needed an abortion because they couldn’t care for the child, why they didn’t choose to put the child up for adoption.

[NorthMountain]

The gynocracy won’t allow prosecuting women who hire killers to chop up their babies.

[NorthMountain]

The situation is no different from a woman hiring a professional assassin to kill her husband. She’s guilty of, at least, conspiracy to commit murder.

[DoodleDawg]

The gynocracy won’t allow prosecuting women who hire killers to chop up their babies.

How will they stop it other that with squishy, idiotic responses like Noem's?

[yelostar]

I almost see the logic in your argument.

If an 18-year old high school boy gets his 17-year old girlfriend pregnant, either by ignoring birth control or by the failure of it, and then the two of them cross state borders to get an abortion, they will both be prosecuted. And likely both lives, at least for a time, will be ruined. One life ended, two lives ruined. No positive outcome in this scenario.

Of course they have other options: adoption, or just deciding to have the child and raise it, which is the best option if they have a strong support system.

One issue I’ve always had with legal abortion is that the father is completely out of the decision-making process. But now with it being outright banned, or severely restricted, what is the father’s legal responsibility?

If states that now ban abortion get to the point of prosecuting women who have abortions out of state, then what legal culpability does the sperm donor have? He was a party, after all, in creating the life that was ended.

The law has only addressed paternal responsibility once the child is born. When abortion was a “right” - women said, “my body, my choice.” But now that the supremacy of the woman’s choice is no longer legally recognized, it allows room for sperm donors/fathers to at least accept some form of responsibility.