Rounds Issues Statement on Leaked Supreme Court Draft Decision
WASHINGTON – Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) issued the following statement after the leak of a draft decision authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:
“Our Framers intended for the Supreme Court to be an independent judiciary, separate and distinct from the executive and legislative branches. The information being reported on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case was wrongfully leaked from the Court. The Court should investigate and hold accountable whoever is responsible for this breach.
“I am pro-life and firmly believe abortion is wrong. However, I recognize that if this case is decided as reported, individuals across the country will be faced with difficult, emotional decisions. Our job as policymakers should be to make it easier for individuals to choose life, whether that be making certain they have the proper means to raise a child or the confidence to know adoption is a viable option.
“I remain focused on promoting policies that protect life from conception to natural death.”
###
“Our job as policymakers should be to make it easier for individuals to choose life, whether that be making certain they have the proper means to raise a child or the confidence to know adoption is a viable option.”
I agree 100%. Insure these kids have a chance to lead a productive life and don’t hold them accountable for their parent’s failures. We need proper healthcare, housing, education, and nutrition support for them and it shouldn’t be tied to anything other than them breathing in American air.
Yeah, lets see how preventing unwanted pregnancies goes with the Theocracy crowd.
1. Can we educate our kids on how procreation happens? – Nope, abstinence only, Jesus said, and if you try to educate, I’ll say you are trying to talk sex to my 1st grader.
2. Can we offer low cost and easy access to contraception? – Nope, we should raise the age to 21 to purchase these items, furthermore, contraception is abortion, too.
3. Can we ban all abortion across the US – No, leave those “lib” states to allow abortion, that will give us an out when our family needs abortion. Our case is different, when one of our kids makes a mistake, and gets pregnant, we can take the hit financially and fly to CA for the procedure. That older kid our daughter was dating manipulated her, but we prayed and after the abortion, she will volunteer extra time at the church and become abstinent so things are fine. We can’t let our daughters future be ruined by a sinner older boy who basically forced himself on her.
4. Can we have same sex relationships, that will prevent unwanted pregnancies? – Only in prison, or when traveling and using the airport bathrooms. This is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy though, and one must never be caught.
I just want to say I agree with you and I was the original commenter you responded to. I fully believe this has always been about punishing women that these theocrats believe are whores. It has never been about protecting life because they never support what is needed when they are out of the womb.
1. Sex education belongs in the schools and abstinence only does not work. This has been proven through multiple studies. Myself and all my brothers were sexually active before marriage and our parents followed the abstinence only line of BS. It doesn’t work.
2. I’d put bins of condoms in every school and allow free contraceptives to any women looking for them. This is a much cheaper option than trying to take care of an unwanted child or those who would be financially dependent. The theocrats can still control their kids how they see fit and if they utilize these things, that is not the publics problem and that just proves how your attempts as a parent are failing.
3. Again, this isn’t about reducing abortions to them because bans just stop legal abortions. If they really wanted to reduce abortions, they would follow #1 and #2 above.
4. This is just their insecurities on display. Live and let live. If two dudes getting married threatens your marriage, then you are a failure to begin with.
I am sickened by most pro-birthers because they are not following God’s teachings and they are not looking to help those who need it. They just want to look down on them and punish them. They only care to help when it doesn’t cost them money. They worship money. I hope they can tell us all how much money it takes to get into heaven.
So your solutions to the difficulties surrounding the abortion issue are (A) put out a bowl of condoms and/or (B) take the leftwing project of replacing the family with the state to its fullest extent (and then according to you abortion can be regulated). Then, to cover up the many flaws in your position, just demonize pro-life people with hypothetical scenarios drawn from your imagination.
And same sex relationships are “a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies”? LOL.
My solutions are solutions that have actually shown a drop in abortions and unwanted pregnancies. No one is replacing what you teach in your household. You can teach what you want but the school is going to explain to kids how people get pregnant and ways that can help avoid that. This is simple biology. Telling them to just not have sex and not educating them on how it happens is a pipe dream if you think that has any benefit. You are only pro-life if you support keeping people alive from birth to death. A large majority of so-called pro-lifers are pro-birth and that is a fact. I never said anything about same sex marriages preventing unwanted pregnancies. That was the poster above me, but it does prevent pregnancy unless you think two men or two women can reproduce.
Look, you’re advocating what are at best marginally effective measures based on utilitarian logic. That’s simply not what this debate is about. Condoms and non-abstinence-only sex ed are fine. But they are hardly some kind of solution to the broader issue of abortion. Also, your proposal in your initial comment would eventually lead to the replacement of the family as an institution with the state, which maybe you don’t appreciate. Your ideas are just leftist talking point mish mosh and rank statism, i.e., the platform of the Democratic Party.
I didn’t mean to attribute to the SS relationships comment to you. I was just pointing out how hysterical it is. As though we can or should just sleep with people of the same sex to “avoid unwanted pregnancies.”
The debate is about reducing abortions and providing people outlets so they don’t have to take that route. Education and contraceptives are the number one way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and it isn’t marginally. In fact, it is the best way as proven by numerous studies. Keeping kids in the dark about their biological urges is not helping them any. In the event of pregnancy occurring, financial and emotional support for the mother during pregnancy and support for the mother and child after the child is born are also ways to prevent the decision for abortions. Banning abortions will not reduce them and it only makes criminals out of the mothers without addressing the cause in the first place. I’m sick of people always trying to address the symptom and not the cause. Education discussions in school about pregnancy are not replacing anything, it’s just reinforcing the science behind the biology of reproduction. If having a teacher tell your kid how pregnancy works is a problem for you, then I think you need to look in the mirror because the problem lies with you.
Second poster here, ‘Anyone’ won’t be able to address your logic, they don’t care about the premise of reducing abortions, they just want to force control and create a government run decision making system for our lives. The fallacy ‘Anyone’ has created is to decide between a “government family institution” (defined by him as a democrat party principle), or a “government law enforcement agency to track every action of humans” (defined by me as a republican party principle). I think it is fair to say neither are correct, and a compromise would be a goal to reduce abortions, but the right would have to give up the notion that every human will be abstinent until marriage, and that contraception is abortion.
Rounds said a whole lot of nothing.
He’s an empty suit.
I appreciate Rounds’ take. The opinion draft shouldn’t have been leaked, and nothing is final until it’s official.
“Emotional decisions….” WTH. There will be no decisions. That’s the point, isn’t it. “”Choose life?”
Is rounds closeted pro choice and just telling us what his personal choice would be? Ala George W Bush. That’s how I read the statement.
Seems to me he is pro life and actually wants to help those who aren’t do the right thing. But, sure, let’s make a conspiracy that Rounds is actually an abortion supporter. Man, commenters here are just tireless when it comes to spouting bs.
Yeah how dare those rape and incest victims do the wrong thing. They should have prayed harder.
Are you the op? Because if so, Poe’s law is messing with me. I didnt say a single thing about cases of rape and incest, and focused solely on supporting the idea of increasing social service support for the children being brought into this world.
But thanks for freaking out on me for things I never said!
Pro-abortion commenters here use sarcasm and “all or nothing” strawmen in condemning Sen. Rounds and Christians for their pro-life views. Two things…
1. What abortion advocates won’t do under any circumstances is come to grips with the fact that an innocent third party — a child — be considered in this ultimate moral issue, and
2. I know many pro-life people, none of whom resemble in any way the grotesque caricatures painted by the anonymous posters.
The U.S. has the most radical abortion policy in the world. If the Supreme Court reverses Roe vs. Wade, then it will be up to each state to decide what restrictions to place on abortion. My hunch is, the majority of states — including South Dakota — will do the same as Europe, and limit terminating pregnancies within the first three months.
Please define “most radical abortion policy in the world,” and explain how it could possibly be more “radical,” whatever you mean by that, than a country like Sweden or even Canada.
Faulty memory on my part. I should have said “compared to Europe.” In the U.S. and Canada there are no restrictions to abortion, so babies can be aborted at any point of pregnancy. European countries, with the exception of Malta, have restrictions. For example, Sweden allows abortions up to 18 weeks, then only for medical reasons after that.