South Dakota bans abortion

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I think it would have been better if they would have been able to make exceptions for rape and incest victums. Not sure how I feel about it without those exceptions.

The environment prior to conception makes no difference to the unborn child.

It makes no difference to the child, but it makes a big difference to the mother. Every mother should have a choice on becoming pregnant. If you agree to have sex, you have agreed to the condition that you might get pregnant. If you are raped, you never got that choice which you deserve. Therefore, the environment prior to conception DOES make a difference, as well as the environment throughout the pregnancy, especially if it affects the life of the mother or the child.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126
Originally posted by: mchammer
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
imo, 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, of course with the exception of endangering the mother's life and other extreme circumstances

and roe v wade basically allows states to do that.

roe did not say that life begins at birth. instead, it implemented a trimester framework, (which itself was merely an easy proxy for what medical science could do with premature babies, at the time a baby delivered early on in the third trimester could be kept alive and nurished to health using medical technology, i have to imagine that in the last 30 years technology has improved).

in the first trimester, the state has no interest in the unborn fetus, and can make no regulation. they can't even regulate it as a medical procedure, iirc (which is why abortion costs have decreased while other medical procedure costs have increased).

in the second trimester, the state's interest increasess, and it can make some regulations.

in the third trimester, the state's interest may outweigh the mother's if the mother's health isn't at risk, etc. at that point the state may regulate abortion-as-birth-control to its fullest extent.

This has been changed now by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. It allows some first trimester restrictions provided they do not constitute an "undue burden". Also it says there must always be a health exception available, and what affects a women's health is undefined, so given a willing provider any reason can be used. In fact there is a clinic in I think Idaho which specializes in third term procedures and performs hundreds per year. Look up Emmit Tiller if you are interested.

yup, casey is now the law, but casey has a problem in that it isn't a majority decision, merely a plurality. o'connor basically gutted and restructred roe v. wade with that one. but you can't really rely on a plurality decision, so while roe is no longer the law in one sense, it still is the law in another.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
a law is unjust if it tramples the rights of even one person.
Must be nice in that ivory tower of yours, what with no shades of gray or anything...
wow you got it backwards, thats the anti choice problem
any law tramples on someone's rights. applying known law to ascertained facts results in perverse and unwanted consequences at the margins. that is how you can tell the difference between a society of laws and a society of norms.
 

gnumantsc

Senior member
Aug 5, 2003
414
0
0
Notice how this is still a problem in the US? Every industrialized nation does not have a problem with doing abortions. Mexico, England, Canada, etc...

Problem is these conservative nuts think everything is murder. Maybe if there were less nuts the US would actually be decent. They should be focusing their efforts on stopping crime and abortion is not a crime its a right to choose. Great episode of Boston Legal on the very subject where a rape victim was brought to a Catholic hospital where they don't believe in the morning after pill and it caused the girl who was raped to keep the child and was not informed of other methods. She won the court case.

Now do the people in South Dakota need problems like that? Heck they'll go to North Dakota to get the abortion. The US cannot distinguish itself between Church and State and problems like this arises. Heck Gay Marriage will probably never happen with the way the govt nuts are.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,082
12
76
fobot.com
gnumantsc, you have no concept of our constitution and states rights apparently
the laws of Canada and Quebec don't apply to the US

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: RBachman
Oh well, it was a middle of nowhere bumblefsck state I'd never go to before this, and will remain as such. With every passing day a secession looks more and more tempting.

Maine? Secession? Eh..go for it, I guess.

Just a little joke, you'd have to be a Stephen King fan to appreciate it in conjunction with my SN. I don't live in Maine.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,741
569
126
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
It's because you're all men, you think you don't have to worry about it.

There's more women then men in the US. Don't blame us, you guys are the ones that hold the keys to the democracy castle.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,741
569
126
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp
And when they ban it in all of the US, what then? Drive to Mexico? Let some sketchy guy in a sombrero liquor you up with tequila and scrape it on out of ya? I don't think so.

And I'll put it where I want it.

Canada isn't too far away, is it?

That's a poor argument. Will you be saying the same thing when the government takes away some freedom you hold dear?

They're already working on several. Since the majority of people couldn't give two sh|ts as long as their taxes are low and they aren't directly affected all you can do is hold on for a bumpy ride!
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126
well that was pretty crappy to lock the new thread and make us use this old long thread


anyway, here is the text


2006 SD H.B. 1215

SOUTH DAKOTA 81ST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY -- 2006 REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL 1215


HOUSE BILL NO. 1215
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
EIGHTY-FIRST SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2006
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
ENGROSSED NO. HB 1215 - 02/17/2006
INTRODUCED BY: REPRESENTATIVES HUNT, BRUNNER, DEADRICK, DYKSTRA, GILLESPIE,
GLENSKI, HAVERLY, HEINEMAN, HOWIE, HUNHOFF, JENSEN, JERKE, KLAUDT, KOISTINEN,
KRAUS, KREBS, LANGE, MCCOY, MICHELS, MILES, NELSON, NOVSTRUP, PEDERSON
(GORDON), RAUSCH, RHODEN, TORNOW, TURBIVILLE, VAN ETTEN, WEEMS, WICK, AND
WILLADSEN AND SENATORS BARTLING, ABDALLAH, EARLEY, KELLY, KLOUCEK, KOSKAN,
MCNENNY, MOORE, NAPOLI, AND SCHOENBECK



BILL TRACKING REPORT: 2006 Bill Tracking SD H.B. 1215

2006 Bill Text SD H.B. 1215

VERSION: Engrossed

VERSION-DATE: February 17, 2006

SYNOPSIS: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.

NOTICE:
[D> Text within these symbols is deleted <D]

TEXT: BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited. Moreover, the Legislature finds that the guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right to life.

Section 2. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.

Section 3. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.

Section 4. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice. Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute. Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.

Section 5. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Terms used in this Act mean:

(1) "Pregnant," the human female reproductive condition, of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth;

(2) "Unborn human being," an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth;

(3) "Fertilization," that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum.

Section 6. That Section 34-23A-2 be repealed. [D> 34-23A-2. An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed in compliance with Section 34-23A-3, 34-23A-4, or 34-23A-5. <D]

Section 7. That Section 34-23A-3 be repealed. [D> 34-23A-3. 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. <D]

Section 8. That Section 34-23A-4 be repealed. [D> 34-23A-4. An abortion may be performed following the twelfth week of pregnancy and through the twenty-fourth 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 Section 34-23A-6. <D]

Section 9. That Section 34-23A-5 be repealed. [D> 34-23A-5. An abortion may be performed following the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital authorized under Section 34-23A-4 and only if there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. <D]

Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of a provision of this Act, the provisions of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, of this Act are similarly enjoined, suspended, or delayed during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation.

Section 11. If any court of law finds any provision of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of this Act are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of Sections 34-23A-2, 34-23A-3, 34-23A- 4, and 34-23A-5, as of June 30, 2006, are immediately reeffective.

Section 12. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act.
 

KarenMarie

Elite Member
Sep 20, 2003
14,372
6
81
Originally posted by: skimple
Originally posted by: ILoveLamp

The point is, since it's obviously unconstitutional, it could very possibly be appealed to the Supreme Court, and then all the conservatives there will have to "re-evaluate" Roe v. Wade, in other words totally take it apart, and in a few years it could be banned altogether.

You need to go back and research the legal history of abortion instead of making blanket statements that are not founded in fact or precedent.

Prior to RvW, abortion was a issue that was decided upon by each state - states are supposed to have rights, you know. What RvW did was to proclaim that a power previously reserved by the states was in violation of a clause in the Constitution that was not actually in the constitution, but was "implied" if you take certain sections out and stick them together. Therefore, the states could make no law in violation of the constitution, and abortion could no longer be prohibited by the states.

There are several fundamental legal arguments that could challenge the RvW decision:

- If a right is not explictly called out in the constitution, does it exist?
- Does the federal government have the authority to override the power of states?
- At what stage of life is a person entitled to individual rights?
- Etc.

IF the US Supreme Court ever decided to re-open the decision of the RvW case, and IF they decided that the legal arguments did not withstand scrutiny, the impact of the changes wrt a woman's "right" to an abortion would depend entirely on the where the court found a "flaw" in the previous decision.

It is entirely possible that the court could decide that it was a power which should be reserved for the states, in whihc case, each state could establish it's own laws. This could mean that all of the blue states would allow abortion, and all of the red states would prohibit abortion. But there is no way to predict the outcome without knowing the which legal arugument would be overturned.

If you really have the passion that you express, you need to spend the time to research and learn about the topic before posting emotionally charged statements that provide value to the debate.

Think - then speak.

:heart:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126
SD has NOW banned abortion, 3 weeks after this thread was started.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |