Argus: More on abortion’s return to the legislature.
Peter Harriman at the Argus Leader has a story on the abortion issue preparing to rear-up at the legislature in 2008, and possibly at the ballot box as well:
Preliminary efforts already are under way to get an anti-abortion initiative before voters in 2008.
No petitions have been circulated. But the Secretary of State’s Web site lists a proposal to do so, an initiated measure “to regulate the performance of certain abortions, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being and to prescribe a penalty therefore.”
and…
“Let’s face it. There was a need for some clarity about exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, etc. I’m sure anything that is put on the legislative agenda or is put on the ballot is going to clarify those and make more obvious to everyone those particular exemptions,” Hunt said.
However, South Dakota Planned Parenthood director Kate Looby says people such as Hunt are not hearing what South Dakotans actually said.
“What I can tell you is South Dakotans clearly do not want another abortion ban on the ballot next year,” she said.
I have heard word that while it may originate in the House, in the Senate we may see it primed (or at least carried) by Senator Dave Knudson.
As a founding member of the MAINstream coalition, Dave had been on the opposite side of conservatives on measures regarding the definition of marriage, and abortion. If what’s rumored comes to fruition, you might consider it a step towards Dave wooing the critical GOP conservative block, which you can’t get through a GOP primary without.
Will it happen? You’ll know in a couple of months.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
If health of the mother is included, the bill is worthless as anyone wanting an abortion will claim it’s for their health which can cover everything from fear of stretch marks to anxiety to whatever. To save the life of the mother would be better wording.
I’m interested to read that Knudson is rumored to be a sponsor on an abortion ban bill. What do people think of this? I think it might backfire on him – it is so overtly political that conservatives will be unmoved, but “mainstreamers” will be alienated. Better to be true to what you are, I would think. Abortion is not an issue that you can credibly change your mind about.
Kate Looby wants to spin the election. Had there been exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother, I, like Erwin, have no doubt it would have passed. Some might suggest the election told the legislature to pass a law the electorate could live with.
tigerman,
It’s so sweet that the only way a woman can have control over her own body is if she is practicallly on her deathbed?
That it doesn’t matter what the woman believes, or what her life situation is or anyting. As long as she becomes a part of Leslee Unruhs Baby Farms/Baby Mills, it’s all okay with you guys?
There is a huge chasm between baby farms/mills and limiting abortion to life of the mother. I actually wouldn’t have a problem with health of the mother if it wouldn’t be abused, but you and I both know for a fact that this would be the excuse for every abortion of convenience and thus nothing would change from what we have now, which is actually what you want anyway, Elias, right?
How’s this for an idea – have a little personal responsibility. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, then prevent it BEFORE it occurs, not afterward via abortion when there is another life involved. Since rape and incest would already be covered, this takes care of those issues which have nothing to do with personal responsibility.
Kate – I live in South Dakota and travel across it as much as you do or more. South Dakotans want something to vote on.
It appears we can expect more lies from you if that is how you are going to start.
I hope the people get to vote on the very same Referred Law Six.
If Dave Knudson stabs his pro-choice base in the back by supporting a ban, he won’t stand a chance of being elected in District 14. Obviously he is on a misguided mission to drop out in 2008 so he can start his run for governor as a moderate.
Sadly for Dave, nobody’s going to see him as anything other than a paper thin opportunist. And if he thinks this is going to give him leverage with the ChrisCon wingnuts in his Senate caucus, he will be very disappointed. This is a victory for them, not Dave.
What bothers me about this whole issue is that it doesn’t even have anything to do with abortion…it’s only a front. The underlying issue is government control over decisions that should be made by the families involved in the situation. I was not put on earth to play God and neither were any of you. There would be less abortions performed if we just promote birth control, adoptions and compassion.
Tigerman, don’t you find it rather ironic that the very people who would find a loophole about what “life of the mother” means are the same ones who are angry Roger Hunt found a loophole?
I think the bill to ban abortions needs another addition. Let’s make marriage of the parents mandatory. I mean why should the mother have to carry the load alone? This is a matter of personal responsibility and both mother and farther were involved, correct? If we’re going to bring an unwanted baby into this world, we certainly want it to be in the best situation possible.
If we added consequences that included men, there is no way this bill would ever be introduced. Not even women would support it.
#9: I assume you have no problem with child abuse or incest. As you say, “the underlying issue is government control over decisions that should be made by families involved in the situation.”
Frankly #9, I consider it humane to oppose child abuse, incest, and unwanted baby genocide. I don’t consider it playing God.
9. There would be less “abortions performed” if we just stopped performing them.
“Give me Liberty or give me Death.”
Go ahead, morons. Let the government decide that a person (female) has nothing to say about her body, about her future… Let mini-minded conservatives harp about the non-issues. This issue, while conveniently appearing to be about killing (or not) babies, is not about abortion. It is about CHOICE. About the underlying concept in this democracy that I, you, we are free to do most things. That we are free of having the government in our yards, houses, bedrooms. The rhetoric from the right is erroneously focused and ignorant.
Understanding that this is a pivotal issue seems to exceed the average IQ here. Make sure you realize that this people (females in reproductive age) to be subjugate– and that like any other arena in which the government is allowed entry, it will create a new structure, in which other groups with other issues will be controlled.
If you vote to become a drone, do not be surprised when you have no more freedoms. You asked to be controlled.
Any “democrat-ophile (lover of democracy) knows that kicking and screaming and hating other peoples choices, the correct vote is that which offers choice. I cannot and will not dictate what you do. Do not dictate what I do. Anything less is fascism.
Interestingly, I do not believe Patrick Henry would have approved of abortion for any reason.
I have not seen anybody in this issue want to take away anybody’s freedoms. As a person, you have the right to engage in any kind of sexual behavior you wish to as long as it does no harm to anybody and is with someone of a legal age. However, your freedom ends at my nose. When you abort a baby, you are ending the freedom of someone. I believe Patrick Henry would disapprove of that.
15. Then you, kind Sir, have completely misunderstood Master Henry’s point. The mother would die and her child with her, rather than surrender and submit both herself and her daughter or son to your oppressive male chauvinist mandate. And there would be nothing your obnoxiously intrusive and invasive authoritarian nose could do about it. This is, in fact as it has always been, and always will be. And you Sir do Master Henry and all women a disservice by presuming otherwise.
Bill, there you go again. Master Henry makes use of an American icon and tries to make a connection that does not exist. I believe you would be hard-pressed to find any quote from Patrick Henry about abortion, let alone supporting it. This would be like me taking the moniker Gloria Steinem and making an argument that is pro-life. As for being obnoxious, look in the mirror sometime. Now about your almost argument.
In today’s day and age, there is almost no reason for women to become pregnant unless they choose to do so, barring something outside of their control (just for you, I will specify–rape or incest). This means almost all abortions are done for reasons of birth control. By what right do you in your obnoxious, self-righteous, narrow-minded, egotistical self think that you have the right to tell someone it is ok to end the life of another innocent human being? Is there any time you believe it is ok for the government to step in?
17. “By what right do you in your obnoxious, self-righteous, narrow-minded, egotistical self think that you have the right to tell someone it is ok to end the life of another innocent human being?”
I don’t. The right of a woman to own her body and it’s contents is first of all intrisic (natural law) and is further protected specifically by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. She and she alone has the right to decide with whom and under what circumstances she will share it with another.
17. Finally, duggersd, I could have said all I had to say just as well without the insults. I need to learn to hold my temper better when I get fired up. Sorry.
“Let’s face it. There was a need for some clarity about exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother, etc. I’m sure anything that is put on the legislative agenda or is put on the ballot is going to clarify those and make more obvious to everyone those particular exemptions,” Hunt said.”
Too bad Hunt and those who voted with him to pass the ban that was overturned by the voters didn’t come to this realization sooner and passed a better bill. The ban would have been upheld.