SD To Ban Abortion

[Dr. Shane]

I would be surprised if this even comes up for a full vote, much less passes. But it would be a pleasant surprise.

SD Legislature To Consider Abortion Ban

Quote:

---

In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime.

A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days.

The bill will be called the Woman's Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won't prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman's life.

And the lawmaker who's introducing the bill says he thinks now is the right time to try and over-turn Roe vs Wade.

---

[bevin]

Quote:

---

But it would be a pleasant surprise.

---

For you, yes. For me and others - very unpleasant.

To me, life is a continuum.

We start as a gleam in our parent's eye - the decision to procreate is one that they should take rationally and they should be allowed to choose either way. In particular I strongly support allowing birth control. Some denominations do not.

Then a fertilized ovum results. To me it is no different to any other single-cell slime/fish/monkey/human cell. Almost any method that prevents it from dividing is okay.

As it develops it becomes more and more like me - and the damage done by destroying it also grows. The benefits of allowing its destruction must correspondingly increase to justify doing it.

Once delivered, it may STILL not be worth keeping alive. There are horrible situations where killing the neonate is still the right choice.

By the time they are a healthy adult, the decision to kill them requires very heavy justification. Soldier's will occassionally kill their own buddies to save them from even worse fates.

Then as we decay into death, the decision to assist gets easier again. I don't want my illogical memory-free autonomic-reactions only body to be kept "alive" on some powerful machine at great expense, and most other people do not either.

Banning all abortions makes no sense.

/Bevin

[Nan]

It is worth pondering the effects of banning all abortion. I guess in practical terms those who were able, would cross state lines to obtain what they want. One would hope the old backyard practitioners would not come into prominence again, the thought of major lifethreatening infections, and the removal of the woman's hope of ever having more children, is not a particularly cheering one.

I am not in favour of abortion on demand and I think education/contraception much the preferable option. But I fail to see that a blanket ban will produce all sweetness and light.

[Dr. Shane]

I am undecided if the best route to go is to ban it or to severely restrict and discourage it. Either way, I definately believe it is a states' rights issue. The US Constitution simply does not protect abortion as a right.

Ways abortion could be restricted and discouraged are as follows:

• Mandatory 24 hour waiting period
• Mandatory counseling prior to abortion not done by the abortion provider
• Pregnancy counseling centers (like Planned Parenthood) should not be allowed to be an abortion provider.
• Minor children should have to have parental consent with some exceptions
• Sex education programs in public school should discourage abortion and promote adoption
• Special lisence plates should be availble that say something like "Choose Life"
• Abortion providers should not be allowed to operate any pregnancy hotlines
• Abortion providers should not be allowed to participate in any sex education in public schools
• Abortions should not be allowed to be performed in a hospital except for medical reasons
• PSAs (public service anouncements) should discourage abortion and encourage adoption
• A tax credit should be given that equals the cost for adoption to those that adopt
• Pregnancy shelters that provide shelter and medical care to unwed mothers should be subsidised by the governement.

Given the choice of keeping abortion legal with these restrictions or banning it is a difficult one for me. I certainly could vote for a politician that wants to restrict and discourage abortion as easily as I could vote for one that wants to ban it.

[Jeannieb43]

Laws prescribe or proscribe human behavior. The U.S. Constitution only once went so far as to pass a law about human conduct and that was the ban on alcohol. That was a failure. The Bill of Rights states what rights the people have. Nowhere is personal conduct addressed. Once we start putting everybody's pet peeve (abortion is illegal; flag burning is illegal; using insensitive racial and ethnic terms is illegal) into our Constitution we end up with a convoluted and unenforceable document that will always be used to repress human beings.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The U.S. Constitution only once went so far as to pass a law about human conduct and that was the ban on alcohol. That was a failure.

---

The idea that prohibition was a failure is of great debate. Don't believe it. 18th Ammendment was repealed due to the industry greasing the politicians. Prohibition had many successes. It took more than a generation for American consumption of alcohol to return to the pre-prohibition levels. EG White supported prohibition and stated that we should too - even if it meant voting on Sabbath. That is one thing she wasn't wrong about.

The issue at hand isn't a constitutional ammendment to ban abortion. It is the states' right to ban or restrict it through the democratic process. Since this is not addressed in the Constitution, it is reserved to the states to decide as per the Tenth Ammendment. Roe v. Wade was bad law.

Quote:

---

The U.S. Constitution only once went so far as to pass a law about human conduct

---

I believe my high school civics teacher told us something about the a 13th Ammendment banning slavery, a 15th Ammendment banning racial voting descrimination, a 20th Ammendment banning voting descrimination based on sex, a 24th Ammendment banning a poll tax and a 26th Ammendment banning voting descrimination based on age 18. I think all of those things are human conduct.

[Gregory Matthews]

I expect this to become law in SD, and the same is in process in five other States.

This is a legal tactic to get this issue to the US Supreme Court. The author clearly states that it is a law that is illegal according to Roe v. Wade.

[Dr. Shane]

Yet at the same time, many states already have laws on the books that ban abortion that are from prior to Roe v. Wade and would automatically take effect if Roe V. Wade was ever overturned.

I think it is the wrong approach. Incrementalism would be a better tactic. It would be better to restrict and discourage abortion little by little and let those laws be challenged.