South Dakota Right to Life set to OPPOSE SB6 Sonogram Measure

Senate Bill 6 introduced earlier this legislative session garnered a little media attention as one of this year’s first measures addressing the topic of abortion, specifically with regards to its intention to force women to look at a sonogram of their unborn child as a condition to receiving an abortion in the state.

When discussing the measure, State Senator Stace Nelson believes that women should be forced to look, because it’s just like him looking at his foot before surgery:

Right now, doctors offer patients seeking an abortion the option to view a sonogram or listen to a heartbeat if one is present. If Senate Bill Six passes, these both would be a requirement.

“These are laws that are effective in lowering the abortion rate and protecting unborn babies because pregnant mothers are able to receive factual, scientific information,” said Republican State Senator Stace Nelson.

Nelson calls this ”women’s right to know” legislation.

“For example, I had surgery several years ago where they operated on my foot, and before they did that, they did extensive imaging of it and they showed it to me and they explained to me what the surgery was going to entail,” said Nelson.

Read it all here.

However, it might not be as simple an act as the measure’s sponsor contemplating his foot.  On the South Dakota Right to Life website one of the state’s long-time conservative groups has adopted a position far different than what you might expect:

On the measure that’s been assigned to Senate Health and Human Services, South Dakota Right to Life has announced that they will OPPOSE Senate Bill 6.   Nothing definitive as to why yet, but I suspect no one bothered to ask the state’s leading pro-life group what they thought, and they know up front that the measure is fatally flawed.  (Generally, SDRTL knows from experience when they see a dog that isn’t going to hunt. )

I’m sure it will make for interesting listening when Senate Health & Human Services meets on the measure.

41 Replies to “South Dakota Right to Life set to OPPOSE SB6 Sonogram Measure”

  1. Anonymous

    Wouldn’t Stace’s dentist be the one providing x-rays to the foot doctor as Stace always has his foot in his mouth?

    Reply
    1. Tara Volesky

      When you break a bone in your foot the Dr. always shows you the X-Ray. A dentist will also show you a picture of the work that needs to be done on your teeth. Stick to the facts.

      Reply
  2. Troy Jones

    For the first three decades, we made virtually no progress on the abortion front. But, for the last decade or so, significant progress has been made.

    The difference: At the start, the movement was led by well-intended abortion opponents working independently and often at cross purposes. In recent years, the movement has been led by great minds COORDINATING a national strategy AND independent state-level tactics which both serves the near-term need to reduce abortions and the long-term goal to reverse Roe v. Wade.

    To this regard, all independent tactics must serve the long-term legal strategy with special consideration to independent tactics which might create adverse rulings making it harder to overcome in the future. My suspicion is RTL viscerally agrees with this effort but understands the adverse effect it will have in paving the way to over-turn Roe v. Wade.

    I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know how this is a negative to the long-term legal effort but I’ll bet that is the rationale.

    Reply
    1. Lee Schoenbeck

      Because it’s not that easy, or we would. We learned the hard way ten years ago (I sponsored the first abortion ban bill). We need incremental progress on the law, and to improve our outreach to the public. It’s heavy – but boring – lifting.

      Reply
      1. Tara Volesky

        It’s up to the Supreme Court……When does life begin? Let the courts decide. Doesn’t get much easier than that.

        Reply
    2. Lee Schoenbeck

      Because it’s not that easy, or we would. We learned the hard way ten years ago (I sponsored the first abortion ban bill). We need incremental progress on the law, and to improve our outreach to the public. It’s heavy – but boring – lifting.

      Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Two Thoughts:

    1) It’s incumbent upon SDRTL to explain to its membership why it is opposing this measure.

    2) it behoves SDRTL to explain to pro-life legislators why it opposes the measure.

    Reply
    1. Troy Jones

      Is it also incumbent on Nelson to explain why he ignored SDRTL asking him to ignore SDRTL?

      We don’t need to split our ranks. This is why we never made progress. We don’t need cowboys. We need to play the long game. Lives depend on it.

      Regarding the question, “why mess arounfpd with half steps and not just ban abortions/over turn Roe?” The SD Legislature has no say in the matter. The US Supreme Court became the sole authority on abortion in 1973.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        I thought Republicans believe in states rights?

        Why does a South Dakota senator answer to a private organization?

        Reply
        1. Troy Jones

          I get your point and have an inclination to agree on most matters.

          However, at the end of the day, the end game will take place at the Supreme Court and the only good a state senator can do is support that final effort.

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            What is the story behind this? Did he reach out to them and try and work with them? The optics of South Dakota right to life opposing abill that the national right to life has on its website as what liberty dick linked to? The Liberals over on Cory’s blog are having a field day

            Reply
            1. Troy Jones

              I am not on the national legal strategy team. But, I do know sometimes a law is drafted, passed, in a particular place to begin the long legal fight to the Supreme Court.

              Having multiple bills, not always consistent, in multiple jurisdictions can cause more harm than good. I couldn’t care less what hay DFP is making. If there is an optic problem, take it up with the sponsor of the bill. I just was to win the long game.

              By the way, I just finished a podcast series on the civil rights movement and how MLK and the legal team played the long game. We could learn from them. They were successful.

              Reply
            2. Anonymous

              The liberals on Hamburglar’s blog don’t have any integrity, and their opinion doesn’t matter one whit to me personally.

              I saw what SDRTL had to say about it (see Pat’s subsequent post), and it makes sense to me.

              Liberals will fight tooth and nail to promote and protect their “right” to murder the unborn, and they don’t try to use logic at all; they simply yell at you to conform.

              Reply
  4. Liberty Dick

    I’m just going to leave this here…
    “Four states now require that the ultrasound screen be displayed within her line of sight so she may view her ultrasound if she wants to look. This is different than the other state laws that require that the mother be offered a chance to see the ultrasound image. (In the states that offer the mother a chance to view, the offer to view is oftentimes contained in a stack of papers, in small-type print, that is given to the mother just prior to consenting to the abortion. The screen is usually positioned behind her.)”
    https://www.nrlc.org/statelegislation/

    Reply
    1. Liberty Lawyer

      The key phrase Mr. liberty dick is “if she wants to look.“ Senator Nelson‘s bill does not provide a woman that option. Read the bill. It mandates that a woman must look and must listen to the fetal heart beat. She has no option to refuse.

      Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Exactly. I think SDRTL is being smart in this; forcing someone to look is going to be difficult, and it is like trying to force someone to act correctly in any situation-you are often going to meet with resistance and hostility.

          Reply
        2. Tara Volesky

          It all about education and protecting the life of the unborn, not worrying about the mother’s feelings. Why wouldn’t anybody want to know the facts?

          Reply
        1. William Beal

          South Dakota already has a sonogram requirement.

          The bill is unnecessary, and I believe would conflict with existing law.

          If a change in law is deemed necessary, better to amend the one we already have.

          Reply
  5. Anonymous

    They showed it to their lawyers who told them it’s a nasty lawsuit which will result in nothing but negative publicity.
    It also requires doctors performing abortions to report all kinds of confidential patient data to the Department of Health, not that the Department of Health will know what they are supposed to do with it, but it can be assumed that Senator Nelson will demand it all be turned over to him.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    My own thinking is we could stop a lot of young women from getting abortions by allowing adoptive parents to compensate them for their work of carrying a baby to term. There are a lot of couples who would pay if payments for services rendered were legal. The girls could use the money earned to finance college educations. But paying for childbearing is repugnant, mostly because of a culture that thinks women should do everything, from sex to housework, for free.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      So are you saying that prostitution should be legal? Are you saying that a husband should pay his wife for sex? Are you saying that being a part of a family unit and helping take care of a home should be a paid service? I just want to be clear on your stance on these two points you brought up.

      Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Dale Bartscher is SDRTL claims the legislation creates “vague and uncertain mandates.” The legislation itself seems pretty clear and straight forward. What am I missing?

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        What you are missing is South Dakota already has a sonogram requirement and doesn’t need another one.
        The state also doesn’t need to give Planned Parenthood another issue to enhance their fundraising efforts. Every time the legislature entertains another pro-life bill, Planned Parenthood sends out letters to all their supporters begging for money. Planned Parenthood makes money on these things.
        Furthermore, the only reason Senator Nelson wants this bill is so he can add it to his scorecards to show what a true conservative he is.
        Hopefully it will be killed in Committee

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          You didn’t answer my question. Dale Bartscher said the legislation creates “vague and uncertain mandates.” In what way are the mandates “vague and uncertain”?

          Reply
        2. Tara Volesky

          And RTL doesn’t do fundraising? What have they been doing with all of their money since 1973? Not much to show for it.

          Reply
    1. Tara Volesky

      “There is no way in the world that abortion is going to be abolished. It has been going on ever since man and woman lived together on this earth,” Goldwater stated.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.