Senate OK's Abortion Ban

MEGAN MYERS
and TERRY WOSTER
Article Published: 02/23/06, 2:55 am
PIERRE - A bill designed to urge the Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling that legalized abortion passed its highest hurdle Wednesday, clearing the South Dakota Senate with a 23-12 vote.

HB1215, which declares that human life begins at conception, would ban most abortions in South Dakota.


The bill now goes back to the House, which passed an earlier version and now must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate.

The bill, which almost certainly will be met with a legal challenge, then would go to Gov. Mike Rounds.

While several other states are considering similar measures, South Dakota would be the first to pass a broad bill banning abortion in all instances except to save the life of a pregnant woman.

"The bill is so facially unconstitutional, the likelihood that it will not be challenged in court is practically nil," Jennifer Ring, executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the Dakotas, said after the vote.

Lawmakers spent more than an hour debating the bill, which has thrust South Dakota into the national spotlight.

National abortion rights groups and those that oppose abortion reacted swiftly to the vote Wednesday afternoon.

Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke, the bill's main Senate sponsor, said the time is right for the ban on abortion.

"In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children," Bartling said. "There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children."

The bill seeks to make abortion a felony but wouldn't allow charges to be filed against a doctor who performed the procedure during an attempt to save the life of a pregnant woman.

The governor vetoed a similar abortion bill two years ago, saying he feared it would wipe out existing state restrictions on abortion and leave the state with no law while a court fight waged.

Supreme Court Shift

Supporters of the bill maintain that a changed Supreme Court - with the recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito - might be more amenable to reconsidering Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal.

Abortion opponents also speculate that Justice John Paul Stevens could retire within the remaining years of Bush's presidency, and that the president could appoint a judge who could swing a decision reversing the law.

"I believe it is a fight worth fighting," said Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark.

Greenfield and Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, both active in the anti-abortion movement, voted against a similar bill in 2004, largely because of timing, but voted for the ban Wednesday.

Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape.

The amendment lost 14-21.

"To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota," Adelstein said.

Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, objected.

Rape should be punished severely, Schoenbeck said, but the amendment is unfair to "some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves."

The Senate also defeated a proposed amendment to insert an exception to allow an abortion to protect the health of a pregnant woman. That was offered by Sen. David Knudson, R-Sioux Falls.

It failed on a 13-22 vote.

Knudson also opposed the bill on its unconstitutionality.

"I do not believe it makes sense for South Dakota to lead the charge on this issue when we know the outcome," Knudson said.

Senators who favor the ban on abortion also killed an amendment that would have sent the issue to a public vote and another amendment that would have created a special abortion litigation fund to accept donations to pay for a lawsuit.

Abortion opponents have said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to the governor for the state's potential legal fees.

Rounds has said he doesn't know the donor's identity.

Rounds also has not said how he would act on the bill.

The bill's author, Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, has said he crafted the legislation to take care of Rounds' objections from 2004.

"We have to recognize that each time we propose one of these and each time a court refuses to allow it to go up the line, we reinforce in some peoples' minds that abortion, since it is legal, is morally correct," Rounds said last week.

The Senate State Affairs Committee last week added language to the measure saying the Legislature finds that the South Dakota Constitution equally protects "born and unborn human beings," and that a pregnant woman and a fetus each possess a "natural and inalienable right to life."

It's now up to the House to decide whether to approve that amendment to the bill.

Abortion rights groups on Wednesday vowed to fight the bill if it passes Rounds' desk.

"South Dakota is entering dangerous territory with this ban," Planned Parenthood Federation of America senior staff lawyer Eve Gartner said in a written release. "Planned Parenthood will go to court to ensure women, with their doctors and families, continue to be able to make personal health care decisions - not politicians."

National Reaction

The National Abortion Federation and NARAL Pro-Choice America also issued statements denouncing the bill and called for Rounds to veto the ban.

"Rather than continuing these unconstitutional assaults that threaten to endanger women's lives and imprison doctors, these legislators should commit to enacting common-sense legislation to prevent unintended pregnancy," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Meanwhile, many abortion opponents rejoiced at the news and urged Rounds' to support the measure.

Leslee Unruh, the Sioux Falls-based founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy counseling clinic, said the bill reaffirms the South Dakota Task Force on Abortion's findings that "abortion hurts women."

"South Dakota's Legislature heard the cry of those who have been harmed by abortion and passed this bill to protect women and children," Unruh said.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said in a statement that the timing of the bill's passage in the Senate coupled with the Supreme Court's decision this week to reconsider the federal partial-birth abortion ban meant optimism for abortion opponents.

"We applaud the courage of the South Dakota Legislature in voting to ban abortion and end this tragic violence against women and children," Mahoney said.

All I have to say is about time, a majority of the state is against Abortion and it is a shame that it has taken this long to pass a bill "banning" abortion. The bill still has a couple..... hundred hurdles to pass. First the House must vote to accept the changes made by the Senate, then the Governor must either sign or veto this bill. Even if this bill does not pass the House and Senate will continue to pass laws making it harder to get an abortion in this state. The State has already passed dozens of laws over the past three years to make getting an abortion tougher, including stiffening the requirements for Doctors who perform abortions in this State and removing funding for abortions in this state.

I think its an incredable foolish idea. But there welcome to try as it will most certainly backfire on them...

South Dakota might be for banning abortion (pop 754,000) but 70% of the United States does not (pop. 280 Million and counting). But once again the religous right MINORITY is absolutely determined to force its extremist agenda down the throat of the American MAJORITY.

And to what end? Even should the Bill pass and be signed into law there will most certainly be a court challenge and even if it survives the lower federal court (where most of these cases have died) and makes it to the U.S Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would still strike it down as the court still remains 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade. This would mean the the Roe ruling would have been Upheld 3 Times! I'm no constitutional scholar, but I do not know of a case in the history of the U.S Supreme Court that has been reversed after previously being upheld upholding 3 times before?

Gambling on Stevens retiring is also stupid. 1. Although hes old, he's in excellent health 2. he loves his job 3. Hes a pro-choice liberal, who probably wont stepdown until Bush is gone. Basically the pro-life group has got to hope he dies before Jan 20. 2009. Not good odds, espically when you figure that the Dems are probably going to make *some* ground in Congress after the mid-term elections, which will have a more direct impact on who gets on the USSC.

Lastly GOP politicals are not stupid. As much as they love to titilate the extremists they know perfectly well that any reversal of Roe would inoccur a devestating backlash at the polls. Roe will not be overturned as long as ther vast majority of public opinion supports it, its that simple. If they did, not only would they most certainly lose the next several elections but the Democrats would simply nominate pro-choice justices the moment seats became available, and the case would be certainly overturned again.

So overturning Roe is a lose-lose situation for the GOP.

Im all for banning late-term abortions thats just murder but it is a womans right to choose to have a child or not.

Im a beleiver in indvidialism if you can live with yourself after an abortion so be it.

Rabs

Usually you and I dont see eye to eye, but in this case I 100% agree.

Incidently I am pro-choice because someone in my family very recently had to have one due to a dangerous miscarriage. But I also support a woman right to choose. It is not for a bunch of right wing religous extremists (whose religous views I do not share) to tell my family how to run our lives.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Rabs

Usually you and I dont see eye to eye, but in this case I 100% agree.

Incidently I am pro-choice because someone in my family very recently had to have one due to a dangerous miscarriage. But I also support a woman right to choose. It is not for a bunch of right wing religous extremists (whose religous views I do not share) to tell my family how to run our lives.

I agree with you both.

I don't understand how you gentlemen could support abortion. There is no excuse for killing another human being. If you don't want a child, don't have sex or at least use a condom. Don't wait until you're already pregnant to decide that you don't want a child.

But were do you draw the line at whats a human and whats not a human. Personally I think once the organs become operational abortions should be legal only in specfic cases (insest,rape, danger to mother etc.)


My conservtive allies are hypocritical on this, they preach abstience only (which doesnt work) so they cause more preganincies without offering information on contraceptive devices on how to preveant preganinces. (another example on how the relgeious right harms the republicans.)

I don't understand how you gentlemen could support abortion.

I dont support abortion, I despise it. Doesnt mean it shouldnt be allowed aslong as it falls in the conditions above. I do however support parental/spousal notification unless there is a phsyical safty issue with the mother.

I believe it is a human the moment it is conceived. Yes, there are certain cases where abortion is neccessary, but just having one because you don't feel like having a kid is no excuse.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Im all for banning late-term abortions thats just murder but it is a womans right to choose to have a child or not.

Im a beleiver in indvidialism if you can live with yourself after an abortion so be it.

Then why not let a serial killer walk free if they can live with themselves after taking another human life?

Oh, and contrary to what has been reported ealier, when a "woman's life is in danger" abortions will be allowed, but I personally define "in danger" differently then some. I define in danger as a possibility of complications down the road, if a woman is lying there on the operating table and they have uncontrolled bleeding caused by the baby, that is not in danger, that is dying. Two seperate incidents to me.

Then why not let a serial killer walk free if they can live with themselves after taking another human life?

As I said once a organism becomes a Human as i stated above i beleive abortion should be illegal except for in those cases. I dont think that abortion before that point is takeing a human life.

Thats why i dont think the serial killer walking free thing really applies.

Also the organism is inside the mother so its techincally part of her.To me its not a seperate being until it develops its own human specfic features such as organs and the like. (like i said above...again)