S.D. governor signs abortion ban into law

[Eddieo]

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) ? Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. (Related story: S.D. Gov. signs abortion law)
The Legislature passed the ban late last month, focusing nationwide interest on the state as the governor decided what to do about the measure.

The law, designed to raise a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, is scheduled to take effect July 1.

Under the law, doctors in South Dakota will face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life.

Rounds issued a technical veto of a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

South Dakota Planned Parenthood said it planned a quick court challenge.

 

[1EZduzit]

Well, I'm willing to bet we will be having a Democrat for govenor come next election.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Eddieo
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) ? Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. (Related story: S.D. Gov. signs abortion law)
The Legislature passed the ban late last month, focusing nationwide interest on the state as the governor decided what to do about the measure.

The law, designed to raise a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, is scheduled to take effect July 1.

Under the law, doctors in South Dakota will face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life.

Rounds issued a technical veto of a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

South Dakota Planned Parenthood said it planned a quick court challenge.

There will be an injunction within 24 hours to stop the implementation of the law.
The only item of interest will be whether the Supreme Court hears the case before the November elections. If they do, and decide the case either way, its bad news for Republicans.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

How can they sign this into law if there is a direct ruling by the supreme court against it? I thought it was pretty clear. I mean, we all know this is just to test the waters of the new toady's working on the sc. Ugh, this is just sickening, I am so g'damed sick of the courts, politicos and lawmakers sticking their hands in other people's crotches.
And yet, smoking is still legal.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How can they sign this into law if there is a direct ruling by the supreme court against it? I thought it was pretty clear. I mean, we all know this is just to test the waters of the new toady's working on the sc. Ugh, this is just sickening, I am so g'damed sick of the courts, politicos and lawmakers sticking their hands in other people's crotches.
And yet, smoking is still legal.

Any state can pass any law they want. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide if its Constitutional.
I too am sick of Republicans who want to shrink(they say) the size of government until it is just big enough to fit into my bedroom.

 

[dmcowen674]

REPOST

 

[rickn]

wow, not even any exceptions for rape or incest. You just gotta wonder who the real sickos are, the abortionists ore the pro-life crowd. Maybe they are all taking hits off the same bong.

 

[Eddieo]

Originally posted by: rickn
wow, not even any exceptions for rape or incest. You just gotta wonder who the real sickos are, the abortionists ore the pro-life crowd. Maybe they are all taking hits off the same bong.

Does not seem fair does it?

 

[conjur]

Rove must be tickled pink!

Since the Republicans have shown themselves to be anemic re: National Security, they have to pull out the stops to rile up their Fund-A-Mental base to Get Out The Vote.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
How can they sign this into law if there is a direct ruling by the supreme court against it? I thought it was pretty clear. I mean, we all know this is just to test the waters of the new toady's working on the sc. Ugh, this is just sickening, I am so g'damed sick of the courts, politicos and lawmakers sticking their hands in other people's crotches.
And yet, smoking is still legal.

Any state can pass any law they want. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide if its Constitutional.
I too am sick of Republicans who want to shrink(they say) the size of government until it is just big enough to fit into my bedroom.

Thanks,
I was curious to see why they would run this up the flag pole. And isn't it at the taxpayers expense as well?

 

[Pens1566]

No exception for rape or incest should, SHOULD kill this in the SC.

 

[conjur]

"Support a man's right to choose. Ban abortion."




Interesting take on it, eh?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: techs
If they do, and decide the case either way, its bad news for Republicans.

I cannot agree with you there, techs. If the SC overturns the law, it'll pretty much legalize all abortion forever. If the SC upholds the law, it'll pretty much legalize specific forms of abortion forever. Either way, abortion stays around. Thus, Republicans will always be elected pretending that they will overturn the abortion ruling (even when they cannot).

Republicans lose the abortion battle (it is always legal), but win the abortion war (they always get elected).

 

[Eddieo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
REPOST

Think the house passed was the other topic. This is today's news, the govenor passed it.

 

[theeedude]

One more reason for young women to leave South Dakota, as if there weren't enough already.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I too am sick of Republicans who want to shrink(they say) the size of government until it is just big enough to fit into my bedroom

Hardly an accurate criticism of the current behavior of the Republican party, as the Bush Administration has hardly reduced the size of the federal bureaucracy.

There is nothing inherently wrong with shrinking the size of the federal government...most issues are better handled at the state or local government level, with laws reflective of the needs to those demographics of society...the federal government should only interfere in cases where state law creates contradictions that do not serve the common good, or in instances of Constitutionality.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
There is nothing inherently wrong with shrinking the size of the federal government...most issues are better handled at the state or local government level, with laws reflective of the needs to those demographics of society...the federal government should only interfere in cases where state law creates contradictions that do not serve the common good, or in instances of Constitutionality.

I think that taking your logic to the extreme is not a good thing. Imagine each state varying widely in laws. It may be just fine to wear white shoes in California, but what if you forget when you drive into Nevada and get arrested for wearing white shoes? [Example was silly on purpose]. Are we supposed to memorize tens of thousands of law variations for every location we go? That does NOT serve anyone very well. To me, consistancy serves a greater good than local politics.

Local freedom is important, but consistancy is often more important.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It may be just fine to wear white shoes in California, but what if you forget when you drive into Nevada and get arrested for wearing white shoes? [Example was silly on purpose]. Are we supposed to memorize tens of thousands of law variations for every location we go? That does NOT serve anyone very well. To me, consistancy serves a greater good than local politics.

I think I accounted for such scenarios in my post...there are obviously certain scenarios where too much decentralization will cause obvious problems.

There is a balance between too much federal interference and too much decentralization...we fought a Civil War over this debate, one that was never quite settled at the Constitutional Convention, and one that rages to this day.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Well, I'm willing to bet we will be having a Democrat for govenor come next election.

In South Dakota? I doubt it..most of the population is probably for this. I still think it's a bad idea to do this...

 

[alien42]

the governor of south dakota needs to be aborted

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: rickn
wow, not even any exceptions for rape or incest. You just gotta wonder who the real sickos are, the abortionists ore the pro-life crowd. Maybe they are all taking hits off the same bong.

One question, if you think abortion is killing a human life, what does it matter how that life was created?

The rape and incest argument is tossed around because there are serious emotions attached to it. But when you boil the argument down from a pro-life view, how it was concieved doesnt matter and it really shouldnt.

A baby born out of a rape or incest is no less a human being than one from an accidental or planned pregnancy is it?

 

[Kwaipie]

In related news, South Dakota has replaced the teaching of the theory of evolution with "intelligent" design. In addition, only catholics will be allowed to live in the state. All sales of pornographic material and birth control are now prohibited.

 

[bctbct]

So what happens to all the babies nobody wants and the Repukes dont want to pay for?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: bctbct
So what happens to all the babies nobody wants and the Repukes dont want to pay for?

This logic can be applied to the homeless and elderly.
Because people dont want to fund aspects of our population, should we abort them?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bctbct
So what happens to all the babies nobody wants and the Repukes dont want to pay for?

This logic can be applied to the homeless and elderly.
Because people dont want to fund aspects of our population, should we abort them?

Well you can keep thinking that God will feed and cloth these unwanted pregnancies but that is not going to happen. Not only that but Repukes will still go on tv blasting the wellfare system because a 15 yo girl will a kid working at mcdonalds cant support her family of two.