Pro-Life Laws Take Effect in South Dakota on July 1

@SoDakCampaigns

Pro-Life Laws Take Effect in South Dakota on July 1

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, several pro-life laws promoted by Governor Kristi Noem will take effect in South Dakota. July 1 marks the start of the 2022 fiscal year and ushers in several changes to state law.

“The Declaration of Independence summarizes what we all know in our hearts to be true: God created each of us and endowed all of us with the right to life. This is true for everyone, including the unborn,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “I look forward to the day when the Supreme Court recognizes that all preborn children inherently possess this right to life, too. Until that time comes, I am glad that these bills are taking affect to protect the right to life of preborn South Dakota children.”

The pro-life reforms that are becoming law include:

  • HB 1110, which bans abortions motivated by a diagnosis of or test indicating the unborn child has Down syndrome;
  • HB 1051, which requires doctors to properly protect the life of any child born alive following a failed abortion;
  • SB 183, which declares certain surrogacy contract provisions regarding abortion as unenforceable;
  • HB 1114, which provides a better definition of “abortion;” and
  • HB 1130, which establishes requirements for the presentation of a written statement regarding the discontinuance of a drug-induced abortion.

###

18 thoughts on “Pro-Life Laws Take Effect in South Dakota on July 1”

    1. Should a 14 year old , pregnant by a gang rape be forced by the government to carry to term if her parents and doctors say she should not?

      Should the government force a couple to carry to term a fetus that might live about an hour? Is that a decision for moem to make?

      1. Hypothetically, if it were possible to allow abortion when the mother was raped, carrying to term would jeopardize the life of the mother, or the baby is not viable beyond birth, would you agree to ban all other abortions?

        1. — Why will you not answer my questions?

          “would you agree to ban all other abortions?”– Of course not, it is a woman’s choice, not yours or the government…..

          ” if it were possible to allow abortion when the mother was raped, “– WHAT? THat makes no sense..

          1. In other words, your example was a dishonest argument. So in addition to being uneducated, you are also dishonest.

            I listed three circumstances where it abortion were illegal then, would you agree to outlaw it on other ones, like gender of the child. If it was unclear to you, I apologize for overestimating your comprehension skills.

            1. I asked you 2 questions, , you won’t answer them… I made NO argument in my questions… Your deflection is childish..

              “would you agree to outlaw it on other ones, like gender of the child”— I am pro choice, we aren’t making deals………

              AGAIN—“Should a 14 year old , pregnant by a gang rape be forced by the government to carry to term if her parents and doctors say she should not?

              Should the government force a couple to carry to term a fetus that might live about an hour? Is that a decision for noem to make?”—– Are you not capable of a reasoned discussion?

              1. You are too stupid with which to have an intelligent conversation. Half of what you cut and paste even contradicts either something else you have said or something else you have cut and pasted. Stupid is a condition which you have clearly carried so long you think it is normal.

                You are too belligerently ignorant to become better informed. You still haven’t given any indication you have read anything which goes to source documents but rely on summaries which you may not even grasp their credibility and veracity.

                You are anonymous which makes you unaccountable for anything said.

                Thus, you are an utter waste of my time.

      2. “pregnant by a gang rape”

        Typical false-flag argument given by the libtards.

  3. R. v W. = A woman has the right to abortion–PERIOD !

    Does that woman understand that fact or is she pandering to a base? Either way it AGAIN will cost us BIG $ on court cases with the same outcome as other cases like this ..

    1. You clearly have never read Roe. Just another poorly educated American thinking what they hear from the village idiot is Gospel.

      1. “Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.”— Now, you tell me what your “village idiot” claims it says……

        1. Did YOU read the opinion? BTW, your summary you cut and pasted, said “excessive” which is a subjective (thus subject to input from the people) term regarding restrictions.

          And, it 100% repudiates your above statement that infers it is an absolute right including the PERIOD.

          1. YEs, it is cut % paste , So WHAT?— Yes, “excessive” is subjective,,,

            “U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion”— If it does not say that, post what the finding was…. You define ” excessive government restriction”— NO, it does not allow “subject to input from the people”– The decision was made by the people via the SCOTUSA and the Constitution….THat is absurd..

            You list the cases of states imposing restrictions on a woman’s Constitutional rights that have been upheld by the SCOTUSA

            _____________________

            ANSWER the questions—Should a 14 year old , pregnant by a gang rape be forced by the government to carry to term if her parents and doctors say she should not?

            Should the government force a couple to carry to term a fetus that might live about an hour? Is that a decision for noem to make?

            ——————

            Should the government have the power of “forced pregnancy?

          2. THere is one thing that would end almost all unwanted pregnancies— Every male at ag1 14 would be required to have a reversible vasectomy until of if 21 he has proven he is responsable for his actions—- I am not suggesting that , but it would dramatically reduce abortions— Would YOU be in favor of a law like that?

            Another option that has had a big affect on reducing abortions is the easy and free availability of birth control options starting in high school—-Would you favor that ?

            Do you think tax $ should be used for WIC and SNAP programs?

          3. I should have explained that Roe v Wade although confirming a woman’s right to choose left a time limit to the states, I think 20-22 weeks are the norm—-

            1. “In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide.”—

  4. Just to put a nail in your stupidity.

    In our form of government, the people are represented by their elected leaders.

    In our form of government, they may restrict abortion however they wish so long as such restriction isn’t excessive.

    Thus, the people have input into what is excessive.

    You are truly a village idiot as your entire screeds are nonsense and exemplify how horribly our schools are educating citizens of even the most basic principles of a Constitutional Democratic Republic and three separate branches of government.

Comments are closed.