Last week Rep. Fred Deutsch (R-4/Florence) tickled the South Dakota Right to Lifers who just elected him their president by saying he will introduce a bill in the 2016 Session to “restrict the sale of unborn body parts in South Dakota.” Aside from being a distraction from real issues based on the manipulated and evidentiarily inadmissble Planned Parenthood frame-up videos, Rep. Deutsch’s proposal is also entirely redundant with existing state law.
Read SDCL 34-23A-17:
Prohibition of fetal transplantation after elective abortion. An unborn or newborn child who has been subject to an induced abortion other than an abortion necessary to prevent the death of the mother or any tissue or organ thereof may not be used in animal or human research or for animal or human transplantation. This section may not be construed to preclude any therapy intended to directly benefit the unborn or newborn child who has been subject to the abortion. This section does not prohibit the use for human transplantation of an unborn child or any tissue or organ thereof if removed in the course of removal of an ectopic or a molar pregnancy [SDCL 34-23A-17, enacted 1973, amended 1993].
This law outlaws using fetal tissue or organ obtained through elective abortions. If no one can use such material, no one will buy such material, and no one will thus sell such material.
Now perhaps Rep. Deutsch thinks we need to ban the sale to prevent our sole abortion clinic from making the sale in Sioux Falls to a medical research facility that would transport the material across state lines and conduct their research or transplants outside our jurisdiction. However, Rep. Deutsch would then be interfering with interstate commerce, and the Constitution won’t allow that.
Maybe Rep. Deutsch plans to strike the exceptions at the bottom of the current law. That would make the practical barrier to sale of aborted fetal material more restrictive and satisfy SDRTL’s craving for absolutes. The current statute above undermines the assertion that the use of aborted fetal tissue is inherently evil because of the fetus’s status as a human being with rights; after all, if life begins at conception, then ectopic and molar pregnancies, which involve a fertilized egg, are as human as the other fetuses upon which SDRTL places supreme value. (SDCL 34-25-32.7 allows mothers who have miscarried to donate the tissue and organs of their fetuses… and if they donate that material to a clinic, the clinic might charge a fee to preserve and transport that material to researchers—better strike that horror down as well, SDRTL!)
Even Rep. Deutsch admits that no one in South Dakota is selling fetal tissue. But what he calls a “preventive” bill is really a redundant bill, with the sale of fetal tissue already practically prevented by existing statute. Come on, Rep. Deutsch! I thought you conservatives were all about keeping unnecessary laws off the books!
How is Fred’s last name pronounced? To me, it sounds like what his last name pronounces in phonics, add a bag with it and you get what he is all about. What a dolt.
Unfortunately Jerry, I believe it is pronounced “DOYCH”…. but I see where you’re going.
Jerry, let’s not get nasty about names. Give him the proper German pronunciation, and let’s focus on torpedoing bad policy.
interestingly, Rounds uses a “redundency” argument like this AGAINST reg 343(B) (i think) which the SEC attempts to require to prevent “top-looters” from scamming exorbitant salaries, bennies by disclosing annual(?) detailed CEO wage ratios over average employees under Dodd/Frank. Rounds of course is representing the 1% in his goal to protect high CEO salary/income inequality, so that only a few can continue to own all resources, receive military protection (hey, rounds is on TWO senate military subcommittees as well as the banking subcommittee), and free flood protection for stupid view lots on the largest river in the nation beneath the larges earth dam. Torpedos away! ok, maybe the amazon is bigger. :)
redundancy good/bad
Redundancy is bad when it has something to do with money, industry, banks, or loans. It’s excellent if not downright necessary when it comes to sex and/or reproduction.
Nothing nasty about it. Let’s do talk about his redundancy though, why is it that gentlemen like Fred get away with the ploy of these kinds of laws that are clearly directed at shaming women. As the law already exists, why the headlines to have a new and improved version of that fact? Does Fred, the supposed learned man, understand the reasoning behind fetal tissue? Are Fred and his family immune to the diseases that are being studied that will be able to treat them? While I applaud Fred because he rides a bicycle that is not a get out of jail free card on his treatment of women.
funy eve, if that’s what u meant; r u the eve of “adam &…”? oh, nevah mind-bet you’ve heard that one a few times :)
And I’m with you on not giving Deutsch a pass just because of some of his better habits. He and SDRTL are wrong on women’s rights. They are wrong on their quixotic anti-life stand, ignoring the real benefits of fetal tissue research and Planned Parenthood.
Calling names is a minor ill compared to the real inequality and regressivism of SDRTL’s politics. We should discourage both.
Fresh off a $300 million losing expenditure on the Iran measure the Conservatives intend to double their losses on a plan to shut down our gov’t, again over Planned Parenthood. Are the Kochs foolish?
Maybe such propaganda ventures are just a side effect of the wealth concentration Bernie Sanders is talking about. When the Kochs and the rest of the 1% get as rich as they are, they have practically unlimited ability to wage political war in the press, and they know their opponents have fewer resources to draw on to defend truth and the general welfare.
It’s redundancy and reciprocity that dismantle the assertion that a zygote has human rights. The claim is that if left alone and with time the cells will become a human and thus life and human rights begin at conception. TOMMYROT! If left alone and with time a 90 year old man will surely be dead but his human rights don’t end until the event actually happens. PS … extending intellectual validity to chiropractors and prosthelitizing political preachers is an illegitimate extension of analysis.
Watch where you step, Porter. The soil beneath your feet will provide components to corn and grain that will become part of some nice young man who will produce a sacred sperm that will produce a sacred egg that will become a sacred human being. Ergo, dirt rights.
@Deutsch & Hickey … Our Jesus was nailed to the front of the cross for all to witness not with his face to the wood. That cross isn’t wide enough for you two to hide behind with your cowardly assault and specious innuendo on women’s rights.
An “unborn child” does not exist any more than does next winter at the current time.
It is an oxymoron.
Is there a difference between an “unborn child” and an “unconceived child?” Is the latter the reason some folks object to birth control?
The Republican “threat” to shut down the gov’t, again is a “fat field of hay waiting to be mowed” by Democrats. If Rep. Noem doesn’t want to be or do her job in Washington, Ms. Paula Hawks will work day and night for every voter in the state.
“unconceived child”? BCB, that phrase is as illogical as “unborn child”, isn’t it?
BCB, I suspect the real reason people oppose birth control is that they want to stop other people from having sex of which they do not approve.
… or sex that they approve of but don’t have the personality to obtain. lol