I explained last month what bad law and science Senator Jeff Monroe is peddling with his Senate Bill 72, the ban on abortions after the twentieth week of pregnancy. SB 72 barely got out of committee Friday, with the only doctor on Senate Health and Human Services, Republican Senator R. Blake Curd from District 12 voting nay alongside the two Democrats on the committee.
Now Senate Bill 72 goes to the Senate. It’s on today’s calendar, and the Senate can only defer it one more day before Crossover Day compels action by the originating chamber.
As Planned Parenthood’s Jennifer Aulwes says, Senate Bill 72 “is another indication of this legislature’s obsession with abortion and restricting it, and it isn’t what the people of South Dakota want their legislature focusing on.” Senate Bill 72, along with SB 24 and HB 1123 and HB 1157, is a culture-war distraction from South Dakota’s real needs. Legislators should take the position that, whatever their personal beliefs about abortion, they have no role as legislators in making the judgment of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term for any woman in South Dakota.
South Dakota Republicans love the foetus but hate actual non-white, non-christian children discarding them as collateral damage in the so-called War on Terror being prosecuted by South Dakota’s outpost for the military/industrial complex.
Rich women have full reproductive freedom while women at middle and lower income levels experience chilling effects on their rights. South Dakota’s repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care is not only mean-spirited, it’s discriminatory anti-choice extremism.
But, applaud the nutball Republican efforts diverting attention from the party’s culture of corruption where murders and their covers up are commonplace by clogging the legislative session with christianic religionist argle-bargle.
Liberals love to push for rights for all the fringe groups, but fight tooth and nail to be able to kill babies in the womb. An odd hypocritical group I have to say!
Earth haters love to push for rights for all the fringe groups, but fight tooth and nail to be able to kill babies in the Middle East. An odd hypocritical group I have to say!
Republicans are starting to worry me. We have unsafe bridges, crumbling roads, teachers leaving, poverty issues, medical coverage issues,… and our R-legislators seems to be worried about anything involving SEX! They are concerned if someone is in a relationship with a person of the same sex, even tho it effects them, NOT! They want to look into someone’s drawers to see their equipment before they let them pee. They want to tell a woman what she can do with her body tho they know her or her situation, NOT! Less government control is their mantra until it involves the female body. I do see a definite trend, sadly!
In the 1950’s nearly a million abortions occurred a year illegally. These abortions also resulted in the death of thousands of women. The abortions that occurred during this time cost hundreds of dollars and sometimes unscrupulous doctors would ask for other services, to keep their silence. These procedures were done without anesthesia and with no thought to hemorrhaging. Patient care was non existent.
This is almost as bad as the abortion boards that used to have to ok a woman. The statistics support that abortions will happen whether or not you create legislature to prevent them. While I do not support abortion, I do understand that there needs to be a safe way for someone to do it.
Earth haters is that a side group of the Democratic Party??? Loren, Loren, Loren the same old silly argument. When you have an original thought, come on back!
Stum and his Puritan wingnut brethren aren’t happy unless they can “Lord” it over someone/anyone in the name of fauxknee Kristianity.
I oppose abortion for convenience, as means of birth control, for religious reasons, or even for social-economic reasons. The only reason I can support abortion is for medical reasons and even then if all other options have been exhausted.
The decision for to end pregnancy should not be made by the legislature, the courts or even medical staff. The decision lies solely on the parents (both of them) with consultation with their primary doctor.
GOP – the self described party of “freedom”, yet have no problem interjecting themselves on decisions that restrict freedoms of women. On issues that should have no one (NO ONE) butting their noses into the business of what should be between a woman and her doctor.
GOP – the self described party of less government – that is, until, it comes to a women’s body. Then it is all hands on deck, and put as much government as they can in the doctor’s office.
GOP – still continues to refute medical science and expertise. They just bat away like it is a little gnat in their ear when it comes to their own ideological opinion.
Until the GOP’ers start looking at ways to prevent unwanted or unintended pregnancies in the first place, how in the world can their stances on abortion be taken seriously? Imagine a world where birth control and sex education is promoted? Thus, less unwanted/unintended pregnancies occurring, thus, less abortion. Simple math.
So that leaves one conclusion……it is about controlling women. That’s all.
I am mailing a wire coat hanger to Jeff Monroe today.
Monsanto, Bayer and Sygenta abort foetuses all the time but few will hold their feet to the fire about it.
Let religious teachings back into schools Dana!! Religious teachings talk about exactly what you are saying, but you don’t want that. You want deviant lifestyles and everyone to except it. You want laws that infringe on peoples rights to kill their neighbors, but not innocent babies in the womb. You want to take away a young girls rights to privacy in a bathroom or shower room, where they don’t have to see penis and give special rights to people who have a mental disorder. You are a gigantic hypocrite!!
Didn’t the Scotus determine 24 weeks as the age of viability?
Doesn’t the father have any rights?
Which religion Stu? Buddhism? Judaism? Jainism? Hinduism? Christianity? Islamic? Shintoism?
For the next argument that this country was founded on Christianity. The founding fathers were religiously diverse, they were eclectic thinkers.
The treaty of Tripoli in article 11 also backs the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.
Hopefully this as Thomas Jefferson wrote “I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.” April 19, 1803. still means something today.
Sperm donors have lost the right to anonymity in some states but if a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term he can be sued for support.
I can’t judge someone on a decision that I personally cannot physically make myself. Therefore I believe its a decision that the person has to live with. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion should be legal, I agree with late term abortions only in case of health, but making these 12-20 week abortion laws just seems counter productive.
Contact with the Big Sioux River can cause spontaneous abortions.
“no role as legislators”
yes there is, make sure we have due process for all.
Contact with the James River causes insanity.
A foetus has no civil rights until the third trimester, Steve.
wow Stu! You did a whole lotta mind reading about what I think! About things I have never discussed with you. But reading through your post…..gives me even that much more confidence about many things!
Larry has obviously had contact with the James River then!!!
Dana, addressing trolls directly only feeds them.
Jeff Monroe ought to practice that neurological chiropracty on himself.
God is referenced at least 4 times in the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Franklin writes about how they prayed every morning during the battle for independence and how God answered prayers and intervened to change history by allowing the British to be defeated. Don’t tell me these were not religious men.
The Declaration of Independence referenced the Creator and called American Indians “merciless savages.” It is a work of fiction.
The author of the Declaration denied the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and saw the Creator as a plate-spinner who put the universe into motion then walked away.
Benjamin Franklin was not a christian but a deist like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were.
The American war machine butchers countless children every day in the name of democracy.
The God of Abraham is a vengeful, merciless beast who murders billions.
Hey, Stu! Do you have any original thought on any topic? Or do you just have an app automatically barfs up talk-radio karaoke for you?
Stu, if you want to stop an abortion, sprout a uterus, go get pregnant, and then don’t have an abortion. Until then—heck, even after then—stay out of my wife’s and my daughter’s and every other woman’s medical choices.
Loren, that trend you see is not a figment of your imagination. It is a dangerous distraction.
MC, let me see if I have this right: if you join me in Pierre next year, you’ll back me up on blocking further abortion restrictions?
Fathers’ rights? Fathers have the right to prohibit an abortion if fathers are carrying fetuses in their own wombs.
No, Steve. This is not a due process question. This is a fundamental question of citizens’ bodily autonomy. Legislators cannot command women to bear children. To allow that command is to countenance a tyranny graver than anything you’ve ever established in your anti-government rants.
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.” Ben Franklin
The Declaration doesn’t mention religion and what is referenced by God is only barely compatible with Christianity. The terms Nature’s God, Creator, and Divine Providence are all terms used in deism. Thomas Jefferson himself was opposed to many of the traditional Christian doctrines (Jeffersonian Bible). Also the Declaration states that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the people and not from gods.
And Stu! Religious men have no more business forcing a women to bear a child than legislative men.
In some cultures, women have no rights, their bodies, their minds and even their souls belong to the husband; however, we are not there and we don’t do that here.
In some cultures, men have no rights, until they have proven themselves through feats of brute strength or loss of limb, or both; however, we are not there and we don’t do that here.
In some areas men and women mate for life, share responsibilities, each have equal rights and they take responsibility for their actions; however, we are not there and we don’t do that here.
Everyone talks about the right of the woman to do what they want with their bodies, what of the man’s right to his off spring?
Clark, no sperm donor has a right to a woman’s body under the US Constitution.
SB72 discriminates against poor and middle income women exclusively. Rich women merely fly to Minneapolis or Denver to have their procedures. What part of unconstitutional escapes you people?
This latest mean-spirited bill is designed to break Planned Parenthood in South Dakota. It’s important to remember that tribal sovereignty extends to tribes who believe in reproductive rights who could open clinics either within their borders or on off-reservation properties.
I’ll say it again: any woman being denied her right to a routine medical procedure in South Dakota can contact me and i will fly her to Santa Fe.
Two words not found in the Constitution are guns and god.
In some cultures, women have no rights, their bodies, their minds and even their souls belong to the husband; however, we are not there and we don’t do that here.
Uh…..we did that in America for years and years. Wasn’t it as recentt as the 1970’s before women could have their own bank accounts?
Doesn’t the father have any rights?
Sure he does. He can pay child support for at least 18 years whether the child is his or not.
Are the GOP going to protect the transgender fetuses also?
It is constitutionally correct that a fetus currently has no right to due process before being forcibly removed from a woman’s body. Nevertheless, it is interesting to contemplate whether giving the fetus the same right to due process that all of us enjoy would change anything when it comes to deciding whether the law should use force so that one person can use another person’s body against his or her will. Part of due process is identifying what facts must be shown before the force of the state may be invoked, and allocating a burden or proof or persuasion to establish these facts.
The first issue, then, what facts must be found by the judge to justify an order requiring the law to force a woman to allow another “person,” such as a fetus, husband or rapist, to use her body against her will. As best I can tell an advocate for the fetus might be able to prove that it will die unless the woman is forced to submit her body to the use of the fetus against her will. If that finding that fact satisfies the burden or proof, neither the husband nor the rapist can win as their lives do not depend on forcing a woman to submit to their demands. I can think of no other facts that might support the husband or the rapist use of the woman’s body against her will.
The death of the person seeking to force the woman to submit cannot be the factual standard, however, without a major break in our human autonomy jurisprudence. It is pretty much settled law (and I have found no forced birth advocate make any argument otherwise) that even if someone can prove they will face death by liver or kidney failure absent a transplant, that person still has not proved he or she has any right under due process of law to force another person to give up their body or any parts of their body to prevent that death.
Unless there is a major break with the jurisprudence that finds a fundamental right of all humans to decide who can use their body parts, it would seem that under the due process standard sought by Sibby that the woman wins and the person asking the law to force the woman into submission loses. Thus forced birthers need more than a grant of due process to the fetus to achieve their objective; they need a fundamental and wide revision of our views on human autonomy and the laws that protect each of us from being forced to give up our own bodily autonomy.
Mike you’re just being too kind. All the father has to do is pay some $$$ and he is off the hook?
How about you take something more precious from him? He has to spend some time with child, changing diapers, feeding, giving the kid bathes. In short he has to be the dad.
Can rapists do that from prison, Clark?
I’m sure some provisions can be made, besides what else are they going to do?
MC- Regardless of what the guy wishes,he cannot force a women to either have or forego an abortion.
How do you propose to force a manly man to feed and nurture his offspring if he refuses? You can’t even force people to pay child support if they refuse to.
Here’s the deal Stu, the next time you get knocked up you will have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion.
Didn’t we already do this? Didn’t we defeat Referred Law 6 (or whatever it was) in 2009 or 2010? What is it about “no” that these people with penises (and their female minions)
in the SD legislature don’t understand?
There was some very emotional testimony in the floor debate today on the abortion bill. Also on the debate to legalize medical marijuana (SB171).
Baby Moon, the two abortion bans that were defeated in 2006 and 2008 banned abortion at any gestational age. SB72 bans after 20-weeks gestational age. Most women don’t have an ultrasound until the 20th week. It’s at that appointment they could learn the devastating news that their much wanted baby has a fatal fetal anomaly.
Everyone should read Danielle Deaver’s story. After the NE legislature enacted a similar 20-week ban, Danielle was the first victim of a callous bill.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214
So glad some stood up for this and it reminded me. My daughter is in college, a year ahead of her peers, healthy and smart. Not a SINGLE health issue. But 18 years ago, doctors told me to abort. Me, single mom, broke, scared. They told me she would have “cauliflower head” from toxoplasmosis that I had tested positive for. Funny because the only time anyone can claim there could be some sort of birth defect due to toxo is if the mother contract toxoplasmosis DURING pregnancy- they had no way to tell this as I had never had a pre-pregnancy toxo test, and had been a cat lover my entire life. Thankfully I had been brought up in a prolife home and would never have even considered abortion. Long story short, she is a beautiful 100% healthy young adult now. I am so thankful I didn’t take that advice from doctors 18 years ago. They aren’t Gods and they are wrong A LOT. Imagine how many babies will feel the STING of abortion, being ripped limb from limb, due to a false diagnosis.
You made the right decision for yourself, Jojo. You don’t get to make that decision for any other woman. Neither does the Legislature.
Jojo,
Isn’t it great that you were able to make the decision you made without state government intrusion?
Roger makes a great point. Once you take the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy away from the woman and put it in the hands of politicians, they could easily decide that the medical evidence requires an abortion and even forced sterilization. Indeed it was not that long ago, before Roe v. Wade and other cases holding we have a right of privacy in these matters, that each state could exercise that power with the express approval of the SCOTUS. As Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes wrote for the court in upholding Virginia’s decision to forcibly sterilize a young girl:
“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Jojo was fortunate that Holmes did not decide “cauliflower head” from toxoplasmosis merited a forcible termination of her pregnancy to avoid future generations that state legislators and judges incorrectly assume will be “manifestly unfit.” Whether to continue or end a pregnancy is no longer any of the government’s business, and this benefits pro-life people and pro-choice people. I hope our SD legislators are wise enough to keep it that way.
I like it when Roger and BCB work together. Indeed, how do today’s conservatives know they will always dictate government policy on abortion? If they establish the principle that the government gets to decide on uterine matters, then what’s to stop some tyrannical majority from deciding to force some women to have abortions? Choice swings both ways; so does government control.
Cory,
Keep in mind the long history of the U.S. government sterilizing or attempting to sterilize Indian women, which I think conservatives would abhor if it applied non-Native women.
Being the closed society that the republican party has become it is likely that they would not object to any minority women having abortions, need to have fewer brown people, you know.
At every point of the never ending abortion debate, what it comes down to is individual freedom, especially of your body, and that is the way it should be.
I can envision a female president and female controlled House, Senate, and SCOTUS that will make male ejaculation illegal.
South Dakota Republicans should keep Roger’s thinking in mind the next time someone bloviates about preventing Muslims from implementing Sharia law. Laws like this abortion ban based on the current majority’s religious sentiments set the stage for a different majority to impose their beliefs on all of South Dakota in the future. Don’t set dangerous precedent by legislating your religion.