Representative Jon Hansen (R-25/Dell Rapids) and fellow authoritarian theocrats are telling South Dakotans that the proposed initiated amendment to codify Roe v. Wade abortion rights is somehow more extreme than Roe v. Wade.
Logically, a proposal to do X cannot be more extreme than X. If I plan a trip to Los Angeles, you can’t truthfully tell people that I’m actually going to Hong Kong.
South Dakota News Watch neatly whips out the plane tickets for Jon Hansen and says, See—Los Angeles:
…supporters can be taken literally when they say the proposed abortion amendment is an attempt to codify Roe v. Wade, according to Hannah Haksgaard, a professor at the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law
“The proposed amendment is very closely aligned with the original Roe v. Wade framework,” Haksgaard told News Watch. “The language mimics the trimester framework of Roe v. Wade and nothing in this amendment indicates any abortion rights more extreme than that” [Stu Whitney, “Is Proposed Abortion Amendment ‘Far More Extreme’ Than Roe v. Wade?“].
Representative Hansen and his fellow petition blockers are lying to voters just to push their political agenda. I suspect Hansen will lay bare his duplicity on November 6, 2024, the day after 55% of South Dakotans approve codifying Roe v. Wade and thus negate South Dakota’s near-total abortion ban, when the Dell Rapids Representative will propose a raft of bills to restore the restrictions that he and his fellow Republicans placed on abortion while Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land. Hansen will tell the 2025 Legislature that requiring women seeking abortions to get counseling from Leslee Unruh and wait 72 hours not counting weekends and holidays to abort their pregnancies during the second trimester is “reasonably related to the physical health of the mother“. Hansen will argue that the amendment’s provision for regulation or prohibition of third-trimester abortions actually applies to all abortions, because the exception the amendment provides—”except when abortion is necessary”—is mooted by the Family Heritage Alliance’s argument that abortion is never medically necessary. Hansen will argue that even with Roe written into the South Dakota Constitution, there is still room for the Legislature and the South Dakota Supreme Court to apply the post-Roe Casey criterion of “undue burden” to the restrictions Hansen will seek on the abortion rights South Dakotans support.
Hansen’s cry of extremism is more typical false Republican projection. The amendment to codify Roe v. Wade is exactly what its sponsors say it is: a proposal to restore the far-from-absolute abortion rights South Dakota women had for 49 years before the Alito Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Jon Hansen and his fellow misogynist zealots are exactly the extremists they say others are, lying to voters to attain their radical objectives.
Not only is Rep. Hansen guilty of treacherous lies, he is also guilty of intimidation and bullying and ordering others to weaponize male bodies to threaten voters. Slapping a name on it like ‘patriot’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ somehow makes it more fascistic, cowardly, and pitiful.
Geez, I love living in a country where I get to just say that. Thanks, Mr. H. You sure are an exemplary American.
Jon, please follow the brilliant example set by your idol, Pat Robertson, yesterday.
What Newland said.
Our abortion laws are fine, we an oath to God, upon adopting out state constitution to protect life. Abd we are dong just that. We are not allowing the government to issue any medical or business license to perform abortions. Tgis is why we do not place women in prison for murdering their unborn baby. It’s their choice. They simply need to find a way to do it themselves. Which is why we punish those doctors and nurses foe doing them. Meaning, leave the state, have your abortion, then come back what we don’t know, does not hurt us. Simple. This way, SD CITIZENS can lay claim to standing furm on being pro Life. Easy Peasey.
5. “Pro-life” is simply code for white people breeding. The extreme white wing of the Republican Party is driving the abolition of women’s rights because they’re wedded to the Great Replacement Hypothesis. African-Americans terminate pregnancies at about the same per capita rate as white people do but don’t take their jobs. Latinas, however, have fewer abortions per capita but the extreme white wing laments it’s hemorrhaging jobs to Latinos.
12. One fifth of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or as some would call God working in mysterious ways but when a person chooses to terminate a pregnancy the creator doesn’t condone that decision? How does that work?
Our abortion laws are fine
They violate women’s constitutional rights to priacy and abortions. God is not mentioned once in the US constitution since he/she/it is a fictional being no one has ever seen and doesn’t exist.
Mike Z, you again claim that “we do not place women in prison for murdering their unborn baby. It’s their choice. They simply need to find a way to do it themselves. ”
I asked you about this claim in another one of Cory’s threads but you did not answer, so I ask you again: What statute or case law decision have you found that says SDCL 22-16-4, which reads:
doesn’t apply to a woman who terminate her own pregnancy?
If you cannot identify such a statute, then you shouldn’t be making the false statement that a woman cannot be sent to prison. One thing is for sure, SDCL 22-17-5 makes no mention of this First Degree murder statute and certainly does not contain any language explicitly exonerating any pregnant woman from being cahrged, convicted and sentenced to death or mandatory life for terminating her own pregnancy.
The plain language of SDCL 22-16-4 indictates that so-called “right to lifers” desire to kill or imprison for life any woman that terminates her own pregnancy contrary to SD law.
Bearcreetback,
You realize the statute you posted deals with those whom commit murder of a woman who is pregnant, correct? So, if a person murdered, or intended to harm a woman, of which kills her unborn child, that person will be found guilty of homicide. If both the woman and the unborn child die, they are convicted of Homicide of killing two persons.
Under the Abortion statutes – the Woman has the right to make her free choice, but it has to be her own choice, she cannot, and this is where the law is pretty clear, be manipulated, nor forced into making that decision beyond her free conscience.
The abortion punishes the DOCTOR, NURSE, COUNCILOR, let alone any professional of whom performs the abortion on that woman, as such, as a “State” we have not given permission to the State Government to issue medical license, business license to provide abortion services, therefore, they and not the woman would be found guilty of homicide, or 2nd Degree Manslaughter.
The “State” would then bring in the SDCL 22-16-4 in that situation.
As per our “Statutes” under we have directed the State Government to protect the Unborn Child thanks to SDCL 26-2-1 that defines them as a legal person, of whom has the right to it’s subsequent birth.
Everything I said above was correct…
I guess, if you do not agree with my interpretation of the law, you can gain an opinion of the Attorney General.
BCB – Zitterich clearly has no response to your valid question.
He’s wrong and he knows enough to hide from the answer.
Mike Z, you have overlooked SDCL 22-17-5.1, which is the statute that “deals with those whom commit murder of a woman who is pregnant” and “effects the death of . . . her unborn child; . . . ;.” That crime is classified as Fetal Homicide, not First Degree Murder. In addition, SDCL 22-17-5.1 specifically excludes abortions, so SDCL 22-16-4 is the only murder statute that still covers abortions by using the words “effect the death of . . . an unborn child”, which under SD law includes a fertilized egg. And there is no language in any other statute that I can find, nor that you have yet to identify that says SDCL 22-16-4 (First Degree Murder) does not apply to a woman that has an abortion that is now illegal in SD.
P.Aitch, you may be right about Mike Z, but I would like to give him an opportiunity to identify the law that he claims exists exempting pregnant women who have a now illegal abortion in SD from prison. I sincerely hope he can identify such a statute and show everyone that he is neither a liar nor a fool, and that I indeed am the one who is wrong. If Mike Z hides by refusing to respond further, or continues to offer only double talk without actually identifying a SD statute that explicitly exempts women who have a now illegal abortion in SD from prison, then I will have to concede that you are indeed right.
Incidently, for what it is worth, I also have not seen any public statement by the Attorney General, nor any States Attorney supporting Mike Z’s claim, nor a statement by any other attorney supporting that claim. I have, however, seen two public opinion pieces by Rapid City attorneys discussing what these statutes actually say about the First Degree Murder statutes and abortion, including the death penalty, one by Jay Schultz and one by Jay Davis, both published on the SD Standard blog and neither identifying any exemption for a pregnant woman that has a now illegal abortion in SD. The issue also has been repeatedly addressed on DFP with no one identifying any such statutory or constitutional exemption for women. If there is such an exemption from the murder statute for a pregnant woman that Mike Z alone has discovered, he should identify it rather than simply claim its existence. As best i can tell there would be no reason to trust either Mike Z’s word nor mine about the law. Only a fool would ignore exactly what our laws actually say, and rely instead upon unsupported claims about the content of SD law.
Let’s break down SDC 22-17-5
Any person who performs, procures or advises an abortion other than authorized by chapter 34-23A is guilty of a Class 6 felony. (This section is repealed pursuant to SL 2005, ch 187, § 5. Section 7 of SL 2005, ch 187, as amended by SL 2005, ch 188, § 1, provides: “This Act is effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.”)…
—>> Any person (Doctor, Nurse, Medical Technician, Councllor, Other Person) – who procures or advices an abortion other than an
Authorized BY:
For the purposes of this chapter, an attempt to perform an abortion is an act or omission that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the performance of an abortion in South Dakota. The Legislature finds that all abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being. The Legislature finds that there is an existing relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child during the entire period of gestation.The Legislature finds that procedures terminating the life of an unborn child impose risks to the life and health of the pregnant woman. The Legislature further finds that a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child may be subject to pressures which can cause an emotional crisis, undue reliance on the advice of others, clouded judgment, and a willingness to violate conscience to avoid those pressures. The Legislature therefore finds that great care should be taken to provide a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child and her own constitutionally protected interest in her relationship with her child with complete and accurate information and adequate time to understand and consider that information in order to make a fully informed and voluntary consent to the termination of either or both.The Legislature finds that pregnant women contemplating the termination of their right to their relationship with their unborn children, including women contemplating such termination by an abortion procedure, are faced with making a profound decision most often under stress and pressures from circumstances and from other persons, and that there exists a need for special protection of the rights of such pregnant women, and that the State of South Dakota has a compelling interest in providing such protection. The Legislature finds that, through the common law, the courts of the State of South Dakota have imposed a standard of practice in the health care profession that, except in exceptional circumstances, requires physicians and other health care practitioners to provide patients with such facts about the nature of any proposed course of treatment, the risks of the proposed course of treatment, the alternatives to the proposed course, including any risks that would be applicable to any alternatives, as a reasonable patient would consider significant to the decision of whether to undergo the proposed course of treatment. The South Dakota common law cause of action for medical malpractice informed consent claims based upon the reasonable patient standard is reaffirmed and is hereby expressly declared to apply to all abortion procedures. The duty of a physician to disclose all facts about the nature of the procedure, the risks of the procedure, and the alternatives to the procedure that a reasonable patient would consider significant to her decision of whether to undergo or forego the procedure applies to all abortions. Nothing in § 34-23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A-10.3 may be construed to render any of the requirements otherwise imposed by common law inapplicable to abortion procedures or diminish the nature or the extent of those requirements. The disclosure requirements expressly set forth in § 34-23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A-10.3 are an express clarification of, and are in addition to, those common law disclosure requirements.
Therefore, as per SDCL34-23A-2 — An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed in compliance with § 34-23A-3, 34-23A-4, or 34-23A-5. If a medical emergency compels the performance of an abortion, the physician shall inform the female, prior to the abortion if possible, of the medical indications supporting his judgment that an abortion is necessary to avert her death or that a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. An abortion may be performed by a physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Or…
An abortion may be performed following the twelfth week of pregnancy and through the twenty-second week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital licensed under the provisions of chapter 34-12 or in a hospital operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either or in the case of hospital facilities not being available, in the licensed physician’s medical clinic or office of practice subject to the requirements of Any abortion performed under the provisions of § 34-23A-4 or 34-23A-5 of which shall be performed only in a facility which has a blood bank or a sufficient supply of blood immediately available and such facilities shall provide for Rhesus factor (Rh) testing and Rho-gam, Gammulin or any other product of equivalency inoculations shall be required for women undergoing abortion who have the Rh-negative factor.
The Rh Factor is a protein that can be found on the surface of red blood cells. If your blood cells have this protein, you are Rh positive. If your blood cells do not have this protein, you are Rh negative. Blood typing is determined by the molecules on the surface of the red blood cells (RBCs). In general, we can classify someone’s blood type by the absence or presence of A or B antigens and Rh factor on the surface of blood cells. The most commonly recognized blood groups are A positive, A negative, B positive, B negative, AB positive, AB negative, O positive, and O negative. The positive or negative sign next to the blood groups is known as the Rhesus (Rh) factor. The Rh factor is an inherited protein that can be found on the surface of the red blood cell.
If your blood type is positive, then your blood cells have the Rh protein; and
If your blood type is negative, then your blood cells lack the Rh protein.
Although Rh positive is the most common blood type, having a Rh-negative typing does not indicate illness and usually doesn’t affect your health.
For more information related to the Rh Blood Factor, click the link — https://www.redcrossblood.org/local-homepage/news/article/what-is-the-rh-factor–why-is-it-important-.html
Under SDCL 34-23A-7 – Lays out the fact, that you must provide a 48 Hour Notice to any Parent or Guardian…
No abortion may be performed upon an unemancipated minor or upon a female for whom a guardian has been appointed because of a finding of incompetency, until at least forty-eight hours after written notice of the pending operation has been delivered in the manner specified in this section. The notice shall be addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent and delivered personally to the parent by the physician or an agent. In lieu of such delivery, notice may be made by certified mail addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent with return receipt requested and restricted delivery to the addressee, which means a postal employee can only deliver the mail to the authorized addressee. If notice is made by certified mail, the time of delivery shall be deemed to occur at twelve noon on the next day on which regular mail delivery takes place, subsequent to mailing.
Therefore, In order to properly apply SDCL 22-17-5 – you cannot hold the MOTHER accountable for her decision, it is a volunteered decision, less she acted in, or conspired wither persons to unlawfully have an abortion without the consentual agreement between her and her doctor upon a Blood Test, to determine the exact reason for the “Medical Emergency” of which her life, or the Unborn Child’s life is threatened…
SDCL 17-5 does NOT refer, nor pertain to the MOTHER at any point beyond her volunteered agreement between her and her doctor where the evidence lies within a Blood Test of a Medical Emergency, therefore, the only people to be punished under SDCL 22-17-5 are doctors, nurses, medical technicians, counslors who conspire together to misrepresent, let alone interfere with the lawful process of legally, lawfully performing an abortion in South Dakota.
In order to have a lawful Abortion in South Dakota, a Medical Emergency must be declared, and it must be documented by a Family Doctor, let alone a blood bank medical center must participate within the process of procuring an abortion, let alone advise the Family Doctor and Mother of such medical emergency, which then the doctor provides further advice and councils the mother, instructing her that an Abortion is the lone, immediate tool necessary to resolve the matter at hand.
The MOTHER cannot be held at anytime for homicide, for procuring an abortion, unless she her self conspires, or acts outside the lawful means of obtaining the right to have an abortion.
The PEOPLE of the State of South Dakota are upfront, that the State Government must at all times protect the life of the Unborn at ll times, regardless, and shall not issue any medical license or business licenses directly to procure abortions under this State. Abortions are to be an indirect tool used by the Medical Profession where a “Medical Emergency” is declared.
Thank You,
MZ
Your OPINION is flawed and unsupported by facts, Mike Zitterich.
“The MOTHER cannot be held at anytime for homicide, for procuring an abortion, unless she her self conspires, or acts outside the lawful means of obtaining the right to have an abortion.” opinion of Mike Zitterich.
You’ve just castrated yourself, MZ. BCB isn’t just some random Snap-On salesman you’re able to convince of your unsubstantiated opinion.
Just watch and don’t sing so high. It’ll give away your sex change.
Ok.. since toy know it all, i am all ears…
Where in SDCL 22.17.5 does ut say the woman can be held to homicide charges for abortion when in the very statute it sources SDCL 34
It is progressively written to give the woman the free right to make her decision. It’s RESTRICTING from procuring or performing an abortion. Read it…
When a statute sources another statute, it does so foe a purpose.
There is No A.G formed opinion on this, so get obe. We need a legislator, or mayor, or city council or county commission to present the question to Marty Jackley.Jack ley..
The law is protecting bor the mother and unborn child from being killed.
Like I said, unless the mother can ve proven to unlawfully conspire or act in such manner, she then could ve found guilty of homicide. But your cited stature does not convict a mother who willingly agrees to terminate her relationship with her child. She’s protected by law
Mike Zitterich – SDCL 22-16-4 (First Degree Murder) applies to a woman who terminated her pregnancy because SDCL 22-16-4 (First Degree Murder) has no, zero, nada written exception for that woman who terminated her pregnancy. Without an exception that woman is as much a murderer as William Kunnecke, the human monster.
Prove that assertion to be anything other than factual by presenting the legal language. You can’t because the legal language doesn’t exist. That’s why the petition must be voted on to codify Roe v Wade in South Dakota.
Mr. Zitterich, tighten up your bloggings please.
SDCL 22-16 does NOT relate to the topic of abortion.
IF a female is raped, and proceeds to request an abortion, the doctor cannot provide the service, UNLESS, a Medical Emergency is declared, and again, this would be covered under SDCL 22-17 which then proceeds to SDCL 34
3. Rich women have full reproductive rights while women at the lower income margins suffer chilling effects on those rights. Women in Texas, Wyoming and South Dakota who can afford it simply jump on a plane and fly to Albuquerque, Minneapolis, Denver or elsewhere for their procedures. Imagine a woman on the Standing Rock or Pine Ridge doing that.
4. South Dakota’s repeated attempts to restrict access to medical care are not only mean-spirited, they’re discriminatory anti-choice extremism.
7. Republican politicians drive their anti-woman crusade to raise campaign dollars so ending reproductive rights in red states is Balkanizing women’s medical care.
Mike Zitterich – Wrong! – SDCL 22-16 applies to murder and there is zero legislation that will stop a District Attorney from filing murder charges against a woman who exercised her human right to terminate her pregnancy, if that DA decides to do so for whatever motivates that DA.
VOTE AND CODIFY ROW v WADE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
According to Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) the interim US Space Command Headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base near Colorado Springs is near or even at full operational capability so moving it to deep red Alabama where women’s rights have been eviscerated seems politically motivated. But so far, the Biden administration insists access to reproductive care is not part of its strategic decision.
Contractors say the B-21 Raider isn’t expected to be delivered until maybe 2030 so which will it be: a bomber base in South Dakota or is a state law targeting pregnant people already jeopardizing military readiness?
So, the military can perform abortions at base clinics and hospitals without any intervention from states like South Dakota so how isn’t that discrimination?
P. Aitch,
You are wrong, NO WOMAN has ever gone to prison for having an abortion, even in South Dakota. I highly doubt any DA will ever convict a woman of Homicide for abortion. You make silly arguments, and you fail to comprehend the law. ABORTION is not even an issue in S.D and I am telling people to NOT sign the Petition to place Roe v Wade Legislation on the ballot. There are better means as to do so, and that is working legislative agenda through Counties and Precincts holding committees, and forming coalitions of Counties to get the Legislature to place proposed amendments to current law. The LAW is written just fine. NO WOMAN will ever be found guilty of Homicide, that is a Democrat myth. DO NOT SIGN THE PETITION, or VOTE NO on the Roe v Wade Proposed Legislation !!!
Mike, why is using the legislature to modify their laws a better method than direct initiative action? The legislature acting antithetically to the will of the majority seems to be what has us in this stir in the first place. No other issue better demonstrates the failure of the skew of elected officials and partisanship hardline in contrast to the will of the majority.
Larry: “Rich women have full reproductive rights while women at the lower income margins suffer chilling effects on those rights.”
Not just reproductive rights; wealth makes right in these United States.
Mike Z, I think others have clarified the point that SDCL 22-17-05 makes no mention of any homicide statute,
including SDCL 22-16-4 (First Degree Murder) and the words in SDCL 22-16-4 the murder statute are defined by by SDCL 22-16-1: “Homicide is the killing of . . . an unborn child, by another. . . . ” The word “another” includes any living person. There is no exception in that statute for a woman that obtains an abortion that is no longer legal in SD. The homicide laws on their face empowe rthe government to jail or kill a woman nthat has a newly unlawful abortion.
Whether a pregnant woman can be charged with a class 5 felony under SDCL 22-17-5 may be open to debate, but I can see no statuteory language in or about SDCL 22-16-4 that leaves the slightest basis for debating the assertion that SDCL 22-17-5 doesn’t apply to a pregnant woman that terminates her pregnancy in manner that SD law has now makes unlawful. Mike Z, focus on the murder statute SDCL 22-16-4 and face the truth, SD has now authorized the State to jail or even kill any woman that terminates her pregnancy in a newly unlawful manner, from the very first seconds of conception until the actual birth itself.
Anyone that actually believes that no prosecutor will ever try to put a woman in prison for having an unlawful abortion, can sign the Roe petition because it will only codify that very point – it will make sure no woman is ever prosecuted and sent to prison of death row for having an unlawful abortion. For those folks that hope to see the government jail or kill women (and anyone that tries to help them) as a punishment for ending a pregnancy, that is exactly how SD law currently stands.
Personally, I don’t think our government should have any authority to jail or kill women (and anyone that tries to help them) as a punishment for ending a pregnancy, so I will sign the Roe petition and vote to re-instate a constitutional right not to be jailed or killed for having or helping with a an abortion in SD.
Good morning, Owen. Hope all is well with you and yours.
How many magats who killed abortion providers or blew up aboirtion clinics ever faced the death penalty?
22-16 has nothing to do with abortion, you people are mis reading the statute.
22-17 is 100% the statute governing how to punish people for abortions, it does NOT mention homicide, but sources 34-23a in the process, abd provides rhe procedure on how and who grants authority to have an abortion.
Nothing in 22-16 applies to a woman having an abortion. The statute does not direct the AG or DA TO being a case against a woman for the killing of an unborn child. It specifically deals another human intentionally killing another person.
You all arr flat wrong…
Mike Zitterich -You’re just making that up. Your opinion matters not. You have no law degree and you quote no one that does. Just stop 🛑.
With Roe protection of women gone why should the lunatic evangelical fringe kooks in SD be trusted with no legal codification?
VOTE AND CODIFY ROE v WADE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
I guess Mike Z. wasn’t getting in enough bandwidth over on the Sioux Falls-centric South Dacola blog.
Again, SDSCL 22-16 DOES NOT convict a WOMAN of homicide if she so choose to have an abortion. ALL penalties, fines, sanctions, are to be assessed to the person(s) performing the abortion
SDCL 34-23A-69 –>It is a Class 6 felony to intentionally or recklessly perform, or attempt to perform, an abortion of an unborn child capable of feeling pain unless it is a medical emergency. No penalty may be assessed against the woman upon whom the abortion is performed, or attempted to be performed.
CLEARLY – NO PENALTY, shall ever be assessed to any WOMAN. POINT BLANK.
IF a “Statute” exempts the woman, no other “Statute” can over take the statute that exempts the WOMAN. She has the right to make her choice, as per the constitution, again SDCL 22-16 would only relate back to the Doctor, Physician, Nurse, Medical Examiner, Councilor, etc.
Again, Know what you are talking about, before you debate me…I will do my due diligence to prove you wrong.
And NO, you do not need a LAW DEGREE to ‘read’ law, let alone “Understand” the law. its BLACK OR WHITE.
Why do we need to Codify Roe v Wade in South Dakota?
Women cannot be held accountable for having an abortion, they are protected by the Constitution, and by State Law!
S.D.C.L 34-23-6 –> It is a Class 6 felony to intentionally or recklessly perform, or attempt to perform, an abortion of an unborn child capable of feeling pain unless it is a medical emergency. No penalty may be assessed against the woman upon whom the abortion is performed, or attempted to be performed.
The South Dakota Legislature, despite adopting a law to ban abortion except for a Medical Emergency Declaration, has repeatibly upheld, and protect the “Womens” Right to Have one.
The LAW does NOT punish the women, nor convict her of murder.
The LAW is punishing only those who perform the Abortion.
S.D.C.L 34-23-1.5 –> The Legislature finds that pregnant women contemplating the termination of their right to their relationship with their unborn children, including women contemplating such termination by an abortion procedure, are faced with making a profound decision most often under stress and pressures from circumstances and from other persons, and that there exists a need for special protection of the rights of such pregnant women, and that the State of South Dakota has a compelling interest in providing such protection.
The PUNISHMENT is laid out under S.D.C.L 22-17-5 which says:
Any person who performs, procures or advises an abortion other than authorized by chapter 34-23A is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Some have made the claim that under S.D.C.L 22-16 that it could be used against the WOMAN where she terminated or aborted, her unborn child, however, this “Statute” cannot over ride another statute, and it does NOT pertain to Abortions period. Abortions are penalized under 22-17 and governed under SDCL 34-23.
Some have claimed I am incorrect, cause I do not have a law degree, however, LAW is black and white, and requires NO Law Degree…
My response to them, is, if you think I am wrong in my assessment, follow through, request the Mayor, City Council, State Legislator, or any Elected, or Government Official to “REQUEST” an opinion from the Attorney General….prove me wrong.
But do NOT attack me, until you can legitimately prove me wrong.
I urge people to NOT sign the petition to place Roe v Wade legislation on our public ballot, it is NOT needed, nor required, “WOMEN” are not being penalized for having abortions, the LAW is being assessed to the person(s) performing the abortions cause that is what the Law is restricting….
Mike Z, SDCL 22-16-1 explictly classifies the “killing of . . .an unborn child” as a homicide. SDCL 22-16-4 classifies “Homicide” as “murder in the first degree: (1) If perpetrated without authority of law and with a premeditated design to effect the death of . . . an unborn child;. . . .”
There appear to be only two ways to plan and cause the death of an “unborn child” – (1) though a violent act against a pregnant woman, or (2) by the woman taking steps to intentional terminate her pregnancy, i.e. by getting an abortion.
SDCL 22-16-1.1, designated “Fetal homicide” seems to cover all the violent means of intentionally killing an “unborn child,” and at the end states: “This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.”
SDCL 22-16-4, the murder statute, is different since it doesn’t have a similar exclusion at the end.
So in your opinion, if the murder statute doesn’t apply to abortions which have become illegal in almost all cases, then what acts does the specific language used in the murder statute, SDCL 22-16-4 make a crime? How does someone intentionally and “without authority of law” to “effect the death of . . . an unborn child” if not by either a violent act as described in the fetal homicide statute or by terminating a problem pregnancy, i.e. by an abortion?
Told ‘ya, Mikey!
You people continue to misrepresent the words of SDCL 22-16-1 thru 5 deals only with those who commit crimes against a woman which causes death to both the woman and/or her unborn child. Within the very statute, it exempts the case of abortion, where the WOMAN fully consents to the decision of having an abortion. What more do you wish to misrepresent the wording of the ‘statute’. The penalties related to abortion are covered in the very next statute SDCL 22-17, of which the procedures to have an abortion are covered in SDCL 34-23a.
I do not know how much more clearer one could explain this, you both are grasping at straws to try to make a case that a WOMAN can be found guilty of killing her unborn baby during the time she is pregnant. STOP IT.
The LEGISLATURE has adopted its resolution, which is spelled out under SDCL 34-23a that it will uphold, and protect the woman in all cases of Abortion, and it is under the best interest of the State (the people) to protect both the woman and her unborn baby from being killed beyond her volunteered consent.
NO WOMAN has ever gont to prison for having an abortion, both prior to 1973 nor after 1973…Stop making making crap up. It looks like you have a political agenda here to force people to accept your beliefs as facts.
Pierre is where truth goes to die so why anyone bothers to get any amendment into South Dakota’s constitution when the state’s depraved legislature will simply nullify it remains a mystery.
Just say it: radical christianic terrorism.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/17/1176662608/a-historian-details-how-a-secretive-extremist-group-radicalized-the-american-rig
Mr. Zitterich and his christianic terrorists want to enslave women: it’s just that simple.
In 2017 after a Republican governor signed a bill into law that discriminates against some couples who want to adopt, a boycott of South Dakota had significant effects on tourism and some Black Hills business owners experienced decreases of some 30-40 percent. Boycotts to protest the state’s attacks on kids and American history had effects on travel in 2020 and 2021.
Democrats will have far more traction calling for boycotts of my home state of South Dakota than trying to get something on the ballot that will be nullified by the risible Republicans who infest Pierre.
Mike Z – Things are different. Roe vs Wade being thrown out makes your claims invalid.
Mike Z, you seem confident in your position and I hope you are correct, but you have avoided answering the two questions I posed about the plain language of the murder statute at SDCL 22-16-4 (which does not say it “exempts abortions,” the only explicit abortion “exemption” is in the “fetal homicide” statute at SDCL 22-16-1.1), Can you solidify your position by answering these questions:
When there are white christian zealots telegraphing violence towards petitioners y’all should listen. Maybe the next step is reporting Mr. Zitterich to law enforcement.
Mike Z, as you ponder the questions I asked above, there is another legal question concerning your analysis. The law is pretty clear that if I hire someone to murder my wife, or my boss, or anyone else, I am just as guilty as the person I hired to do the actual act of killing my intended victim. There is no crime that I am aware of where I can hire someone else to do an actual crime and thereby avoid my own personal criminal responsibility for that crime.
One SD statute (there may be others) that seems to set forth this legal principle is SDCL 22-3-3:
Under this legal rule, why wouldn’t a woman that hires a doctor, or someone else, to terminate her problem pregnancy (i.e. abort or kill a statutorily defined “unborn child”) also be subject to the same criminal murder charges just like any other person that hires someone else to kill another person?
And I again note that only the fetal homicide statute, SDCL 22-16-1.1, has an abortion exemption, but says nothing about the murder statute. And there is no such express exemption in the language of the murder statute, itself SDCL 22-16-4. I also note that the actual language of the abortion exemption provided for in fetal homicide at SDCL 22-16-1.1 doesn’t even exempt only a pregnant woman, rather, it exempts consensual abortion from the statute, which protects anyone involved in that abortion, including the doctor, nurse, and anyone else. The only mention of the pregnant woman in that statute focuses on her “consent” to the abortion. By its own language, then, the fetal homicide exemption covers the doctor, nurse or any other person that helps the woman obtain a consensual abortion.
Well put, BCB. Without an exemption an abortion in SD is murder and the doctor is also a murderer. Hoping the legislature fixes this issue soon.
You are still reading into much to far than it’s simplistic writing,
SDCL 22-16-1, 1.1, 2, 3, and 4 are NOT imposing such penalty on the woman, as she has reasonable means of making her own free decision to terminate her relationship with her unborn child. You would have to provide evidence, in fact, and law that “SHE” acted in such a conspiracy to engage in homicide, by contracting, or engaging with other to kill her unborn baby, which is highly unlikely, and has never had a case as such brought up into a court of law…The purpose of the very next codified statuate under SDCL 22-17 is to exempt the WOMANS ‘free right’ to make that choice from terminating her pregnancy at her own free will. This again, ‘read’ the words closely, places the greater intent to harm the unborn baby with the intent to kill on the OTHER PERSON performing the homicide, or termination of the pregnancy.
Under SDCL 22-17, your not punishing Doctors or Medical Practiioners of homicide, they are pretty much excusable at that point because of the request to perform an abortion, however, under the statute, doctors are being fined, penalized, to sanctioned for their participation in the abortion, meaning, in most cases, Doctors are choosing not to perform abortions in most cases, without due process of conducting medical testing, diagnosis, providing counsiling, which in turn, makes it a WOMANS” free choice, of which SHE cannot be found guilty of homicide.
SDCL 22-16 1 + only deals with persons perputrating a crime against a WOMAN, let alone a Pregnant Woman whereas the Unborn Fetus is killed in the ‘act’ of passion. The WOMAN is not held to homicide, unless you, or someone can support evidence of facts that the woman acted in a conspiracy to cover up the true facts, let alone the crime at hand, making her guilty of fraud or misconception, making it more of a Second Degree Homicide or Manslaughter situation in part of the woman.
I am done with this conversation, go get a lawyer, and then confirm whether you or I are correct. Thank You for your Time.
We don’t need a lawyer, MZ. All we need is an election and that begins here …
VOTE AND CODIFY ROE v WADE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
PS – To address Mike Zitterich’s assertion and prediction that, “This has never happened and will never happen in South Dakota.” I’ll say with confidence, “In South Dakota if the Bishop wants a woman and a Doctor tried for murdering a fetus, Schoenbeck would make damn sure that woman and that Doctor got tried for murder, somehow. “
Mike Z, actually I have read the published opinions of two different lawyers that agree with my readfing of the statute. Here are links to one of those published lawyer opinions, Jay Schultz’s October 19, 2022 article from the Standard:
https://www.sdstandardnow.com/home/ignorance-of-the-ban-on-most-abortions-in-south-dakota-can-get-you-killed
The other opinion was by long time criminal defense attorney Jay Davis, also on the Standard. I don’t have that link immediately at hand, but can find it easily if you are willing to keep an open mind.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion and prersenting your viewpoint.
I took the time to ‘read’ the above link, I am still trying to wrap my head around what the law says and does not say. I do not believe we punish any such woman for her choice to have abortion, but this is a matter of opinion left up to you, I urge you, the voters to NOT sign any such petition without proper due diligence, research, understanding of what any such initiative does and does not do. And related to Constitutional Amendments, I urge people to be careful what ‘we’ place in our constitution, both good or bad amendments an change our living document in such ways, that may harm our ‘free’ right to do or not do what we believe, or not believe in the future. Below, is my final ‘comments concerning Abortions, and after this post, I am closing this chapter on this page. I have said my peace, and thoughts, it is simply a matter of what you believe, or do not believe. It is a “Free Country”.
CAN A WOMAN BE FOUND GUILTY OF HOMICIDE IN CASES OF ABORTION?
At Stake is the Roe v Wade Amendment being Petitioned to Chance South Dakota Law
At the heart of the public discussion related to “Abortion” is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, and whether or not South Dakota law governing abortions protect women from being found guilty or not guilty of homicide where women choose to have abortions.
But first, the ‘statute’ most in question is S.D.C.L 22-16-1 of which says the following:
Homicide is the killing of one human being, including an unborn child, by another. Homicide is either: (1) Murder; (2) Manslaughter; (3) Excusable homicide; (4) Justifiable homicide; or (5) Vehicular homicide.
And then, there is S.D.C.L 22-16-1.1 of which goes on to define how, and who to punish for Fetal Homicide:
Homicide is fetal homicide if the person knew, or reasonably should have known, that a woman bearing an unborn child was pregnant and caused the death of the unborn child without lawful justification and if the person: (1) Intended to cause the death of or do serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or the unborn child; or (2) Knew that the acts taken would cause death or serious bodily injury to the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) If perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony. Fetal homicide is a Class B felony. This section does not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion, lawful or unlawful, to which the pregnant woman consented.
Does this statute allow us to find any “Woman” guilty herself if she requested, and asked for, and had an abortion performed?
That answer, may be, and could be answered in the following codified law, prescribed below:
Any person who performs, procures or advises an abortion other than authorized by chapter 34-23A is guilty of a Class 6 felony – S.D.C.L 22-17-5-1
Is this section of South Dakota law not adhering to, and placing at blame, the Doctors, Medical Examiners, Councillars, Other Persons who may be involved in the procurement and procedures of performing abortions?
South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 22, Subsection 17 goes on to say…
For the purposes of this chapter, an attempt to perform an abortion is an act or omission that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the performance of an abortion in South Dakota. The Legislature finds that all abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being. The Legislature finds that there is an existing relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child during the entire period of gestation.The Legislature finds that procedures terminating the life of an unborn child impose risks to the life and health of the pregnant woman. The Legislature further finds that a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child may be subject to pressures which can cause an emotional crisis, undue reliance on the advice of others, clouded judgment, and a willingness to violate conscience to avoid those pressures. The Legislature therefore finds that great care should be taken to provide a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child and her own constitutionally protected interest in her relationship with her child with complete and accurate information and adequate time to understand and consider that information in order to make a fully informed and voluntary consent to the termination of either or both. The Legislature finds that pregnant women contemplating the termination of their right to their relationship with their unborn children, including women contemplating such termination by an abortion procedure, are faced with making a profound decision most often under stress and pressures from circumstances and from other persons, and that there exists a need for special protection of the rights of such pregnant women, and that the State of South Dakota has a compelling interest in providing such protection. The Legislature finds that, through the common law, the courts of the State of South Dakota have imposed a standard of practice in the healthcare profession that, except in exceptional circumstances, requires physicians and other health care practitioners to provide patients with such facts about the nature of any proposed course of treatment, the risks of the proposed course of treatment, the alternatives to the proposed course, including any risks that would be applicable to any alternatives, as a reasonable patient would consider significant to the decision of whether to undergo the proposed course of treatment. The South Dakota common law cause of action for medical malpractice informed consent claims based upon the reasonable patient standard is reaffirmed and is hereby expressly declared to apply to all abortion procedures. The duty of a physician to disclose all facts about the nature of the procedure, the risks of the procedure, and the alternatives to the procedure that a reasonable patient would consider significant to her decision of whether to undergo or forgo the procedure applies to all abortions. Nothing in § 34-23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A-10.3 may be construed to render any of the requirements otherwise imposed by common law inapplicable to abortion procedures or diminish the nature or the extent of those requirements. The disclosure requirements expressly set forth in § 34-23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A-10.3 are an express clarification of, and are in addition to, those common law disclosure requirements.
So, in retrospect to the women’s right to have an abortion, the South Dakota Legislature has upheld, and maintained the ‘women’s right to terminate her relationship of her unborn baby, let alone, is asking the “State” to protect that right by not sentencing her, for going through with, and allowing the abortion to occur.
According to South Dakota Codified Law, the law itself is holding accountable the professionals, the Doctors, Nurses, Medical Examiners, Physicians, Other Persons of whom the “Woman” may come into contact with, in order to procure, and perform abortions. Therefore, the law is not only protecting the women’s right to make that choice, it is penalizing, fining, sanctioning the very persons, of whom perform the abortion itself.
South Dakota Codified Law 34-23A goes into detail, on how “Abortions” shall be governed, and what procedures must be done, in order to create a lawful, and legal Abortion:
An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed in compliance with § 34-23A-3, 34-23A-4, or 34-23A-5. If a medical emergency compels the performance of an abortion, the physician shall inform the female, prior to the abortion if possible, of the medical indications supporting his judgment that an abortion is necessary to avert her death or that a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. An abortion may be performed by a physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy; and
An abortion may be performed following the twelfth week of pregnancy and through the twenty-second week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital licensed under the provisions of chapter 34-12 or in a hospital operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either or in the case of hospital facilities not being available, in the licensed physician’s medical clinic or office of practice subject to the requirements of Any abortion performed under the provisions of § 34-23A-4 or 34-23A-5 of which shall be performed only in a facility which has a blood bank or a sufficient supply of blood immediately available and such facilities shall provide for Rhesus factor (Rh) testing and Rho-gam, Gammulin or any other product of equivalency inoculations shall be required for women undergoing abortion who have the Rh-negative factor.
The Rh Factor is a protein that can be found on the surface of red blood cells. If your blood cells have this protein, you are Rh positive. If your blood cells do not have this protein, you are Rh negative. Blood typing is determined by the molecules on the surface of the red blood cells (RBCs). In general, we can classify someone’s blood type by the absence or presence of A or B antigens and Rh factor on the surface of blood cells. The most commonly recognized blood groups are A positive, A negative, B positive, B negative, AB positive, AB negative, O positive, and O negative. The positive or negative sign next to the blood groups is known as the Rhesus (Rh) factor. The Rh factor is an inherited protein that can be found on the surface of the red blood cell.
Although Rh positive is the most common blood type, having a Rh-negative typing does not indicate illness and usually doesn’t affect your health.
For more information related to the Rh Blood Factor, click the link — https://www.redcrossblood.org/local-homepage/news/article/what-is-the-rh-factor–why-is-it-important-.html
And, finally, as per SDCL 34-23A-7 – Lays out the fact that you must provide a 48 Hour Notice to any Parent or Guardian:
No abortion may be performed upon an unemancipated minor or upon a female for whom a guardian has been appointed because of a finding of incompetency, until at least forty-eight hours after written notice of the pending operation has been delivered in the manner specified in this section. The notice shall be addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent and delivered personally to the parent by the physician or an agent. In lieu of such delivery, notice may be made by certified mail addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent with return receipt requested and restricted delivery to the addressee, which means a postal employee can only deliver the mail to the authorized addressee. If notice is made by certified mail, the time of delivery shall be deemed to occur at twelve noon on the next day on which regular mail delivery takes place, subsequent to mailing.
Therefore, In order to properly apply SDCL 22-17-5 – you cannot hold the MOTHER accountable for her decision, if it is in fact, her very own volunteered decision, unless she acted in, or conspired wither persons to unlawfully have an abortion without the consensual agreement between her and her doctor falsify, and misrepresent a Blood Test, of which is required to determine the exact reason for the “Medical Emergency” of which her life, or the Unborn Child’s life is threatened.
In order to have a lawful Abortion in South Dakota, a Medical Emergency must be declared, and it must be documented by a Family Doctor, let alone in addition, a blood bank medical center must participate within the process of procuring an abortion, let alone advise the Family Doctor and Mother of such medical emergency, of which then the doctor provides further advice and councils the mother, instructing her that an Abortion is the lone, immediate tool necessary to resolve the matter at hand.
The MOTHER cannot be held at any time for homicide, for procuring an abortion, unless she herself conspires, or acts outside the lawful means of obtaining the right to have an abortion, of which, then does the penalties, fines, and sanctions within S.D.C.L 22-16-1.1 be brought into the situation as lawful charges against the woman.
The People of the State of South Dakota are, are delegating upfront that the State Government must at all times protect the life of the Woman, and her Unborn Child at all times, regardless, and shall not issue any lawful, or authorized right to directly procure abortions within this State.
Abortions are to be an indirect tool used by the Medical Profession where a “Medical Emergency” is declared, of which, the citizens, and their representatives have ruled, that very specific procedures must be followed, in order to establish an authorized, legal, and lawful right to perform an abortion.
I am not an attorney, nor a lawyer, nor am I acting as one. I am merely a citizen of the State of South Dakota just attempting to interpret, and understand what the law says related to a Woman Rights, let alone on the topic of Abortion.
It is my interpretation, that SDCL 22-16-1 and 1.1 does not find guilty of a woman for volunteering to request, and ask for an abortion, it is speaking directly to the State Government, in order to not grant any such permission to any such doctor, nurse, medical examiner, councillor, physician, or any other person to precure, let alone perform an abortion in this state, without going through, the proper procedures, and duties first, thus, first declaring a medical emergency first, and foremost.
As a free and independent Republic – under the Constitution, we have the ability to change our laws, anytime we wish, however, I would urge the South Dakota voters to not sign the Roe v Wade Initiative Petition until you actually read, and research what it actually says, does, and covers, before you place it on a future ballot, allowing the voters to vote on it. I would not want to place anything in our “constitution” which may restrict our right to do, or not do something that we have the right to do or not do.
Think about what you are signing, you do not have to sign any petition of which you have no knowledge of, and if you have no knowledge of the legislation, being asked for your support, do you wish to agree to such a contract without first reading it?
1. Abortion is health care and a pregnant woman is the patient.
10. There is no foetal heartbeat until late in a pregnancy. What an ultrasound “hears” at six weeks are cells beginning to built a cardiac system.
Inciting violence against petition signers should terrify civil society but in South Dakota oh well.
If qualified patients can get a therapeutic cannabis card at a pop up clinic what prevents practitioners from signing off on the medical need for an abortion?
6. No foetus in the United States has any civil rights. Republicans preach civil rights for human blastocysts but deny the protections of the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments to people who enjoy cannabis.
It does seem counterintuitive to attempt a rewrite of a case struck down by SCOTUS so why do it especially in a state like South Dakota where white christianic extremists are prone to violence?
Why prevents someone from having mifepristone sent through the mail to an acquaintance, business or post office on a reservation landlocked in South Dakota?
What prevents someone from having mifepristone sent through the mail to an acquaintance, business or post office on any reservation landlocked in South Dakota?
White ranchers lease land to graze livestock on reservations so why not lease land for a clinic? A 1986 amendment to federal law allows tribes to acquire off-reservation land to serve the needs of its people so the Oglala Lakota Oyate bought property on I-90 just outside Badlands National Park. In March of last year that Nation voted overwhelmingly to legalize cannabis.
The Flandreau Santee Sioux Nation owns property in Sioux Falls and it’s every bit as sovereign as the reservation is.
Here in New Mexico Tesla put dealerships on the Namè and Santa Ana Pueblos to circumvent a state law that prohibits direct manufacturer sales to the public.
The effort to get this amendment on the ballot is a colossal waste of time and resources.
Glendale, Arizona lost their lawsuit against the Tohono O’odham Nation who built an off-reservation casino on tribally owned property.
Approach each tribe to lease space in clinics on reservations or build on reservation-owned property so Planned Parenthood can provide the medical services South Dakota refuses to approve. Tribal communities can erect checkpoints and roadblocks to repel white christianic religionists who oppose women’s rights. Numerous tribes, some from outside the state own property in South Dakota.
If South Dakota Republicans don’t trust democracy then bringing a little capitalism to tribal communities can’t hurt.
A woman in Britain was sentenced to prison for using abortion pills to end her late-stage pregnancy. – NYTimes
Interesting that conservatives deny family planning to the very people they fear and don’t want to see more of….