I'm surprised that more states haven't done this already.

Maybe some have already.

Rights for females are such a liberal pipe dream.


As for ruling on abortion? I don't believe any body of lawmakers made up of a vast majority of males has the right to tell women what they can do with their coochies. I wouldn't want a majority female pannel telling me what I could do with my end of the reproductive system.

Hell, I wouldn't want anyone ever telling me what I could and could not do with my own damned body.

I don't think I'd mind a bunch of girls telling me what to do w/ my penis.

I don't think I'd mind a bunch of girls telling me what to do w/ my penis.

Does this include Lorena Bobbitt?

S.D. nears ban on most abortions
The state Senate passed a bill enacting a near-total ban on abortion. A final measure should hit the governor's desk within days.

link

Chuck Haga, Star Tribune
PIERRE, S.D. - A near-total ban on abortions, crafted to draw a constitutional challenge and force reconsideration of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion rights decision, won surprisingly easy approval Wednesday in the South Dakota Senate.

The vote was 23-12 for a measure that makes no exceptions for abortions in the case of rape or incest or to protect the health of the mother. Only abortions to save the life of the mother would be allowed.

The bill must go back to the state House of Representatives, which approved the ban 47-22 two weeks ago, for consideration of changes made by a Senate committee. A final version is expected to be approved by both chambers and sent to Gov. Mike Rounds within a few days.

"This is the time," Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, said after noting recent changes in the makeup of the Supreme Court. "There is a movement across this country, and in my opinion this is the time for the South Dakota Legislature [to take the lead] in protecting the rights of the unborn."

Rounds vetoed a similar bill two years ago on technical grounds.

The governor has said he would "look favorably" on this abortion ban as long as a challenge doesn't expose the state to having no ability to restrict or regulate abortion.

Kate Looby, state director for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota and South Dakota -- whose Sioux Falls clinic is the only facility in the state to offer abortion procedures -- said afterward that her organization will "move on now to lobby the governor, encouraging him not to sign this bill."

If he does, she said, Planned Parenthood "will be filing suit to prevent this bill from ever taking effect," and she said it probably would be years before the issue reached the Supreme Court.

"This is a very sad day for women and families in South Dakota," Looby said. "It's devastating, and it does not bode well for women's safety and women's access to safe health care anywhere in the United States."

The Senate's action was applauded by representatives of several national organizations opposed to abortion rights.

'Our state has led the way'

Jean French of Rapid City, who described herself as "just a South Dakotan, a mom of nine and an ordinary citizen" who drove more than four hours to watch the vote, said, "It's such an answer to prayer. It says we love people. We love babies.

"Our state has led the way. Others will follow."

Legislatures in at least five other states are considering similar abortion bans, but South Dakota -- in part because of its shorter legislative session -- expects to be first to put one into law, if only until the legal challenges fly.

As passed by the Senate, the bill states that under South Dakota's Constitution, "a pregnant mother and her unborn child each possess a natural and inalienable right to life" and a right to due process.

All exceptions rejected

As in the House, the bill's Senate supporters turned back all attempts on the floor Wednesday to add exceptions, arguing that a clear, unfettered statement stands a better chance of carrying abortion opponents' banner to the Supreme Court -- and a challenge to Roe, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.

"I admire the straightforward honesty of the bill," said Rep. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, who voted against it. "There is no subtlety or excuse. It is an honest bill -- but it is extreme and radical, and unconstitutional."

Added Sen. Thomas Dempster, R-Sioux Falls, "Restrict abortion. Make it scarce. But this bill is as hostile as any prairie blizzard this state has ever produced. ... This fire is too pure."

In response, Sen. William Napoli, R-Rapid City, noted that advocates of a ban have been characterized as extremists. "We're having this discussion because we want to save lives," he said softly, as people in the packed galleries strained to hear. "We are being as honest and straightforward as can be. It just says, 'No more abortions.'

"Am I an extremist because I believe a woman shouldn't abort a baby because she can't afford it, which is the majority of abortions?"

The bill draws on findings of a state task force created by the Legislature last year to study the practice and consequences of abortion. A final report issued by that task force says that scientific advances show that life begins at conception.

Bill supporters also argued that abortion hurts women physically and emotionally. Several South Dakota women who had abortions years ago testified at task force and legislative committee hearings about how abortions had hurt them psychologically and had strained their ability to sustain relationships.

There is concern among ban supporters as well as opponents that a long legal fight could strap the state financially. The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, has said an anonymous donor promised to put up $1 million to help the state fight any court challenge.

I'd like to congratulate South Dakotans on having so few real problems for your lawmakers to solve that they have time to make laws that will quickly beat women into submission in the occurence of a hypothetical and unlikely Supreme Court ruling.

The Governor just signed this into law.

Factoid of the day: South Dakota has ONE abortion clinic in the entire state, and they have vowed to fight the law.

Is that the clinic I heard about on NPR- where they have to fly in doctors from other states a couple days a week because no local doctors will provide abortions due to potential community ostracization and/or personal convictions?

It didn't say anything about that. Sometimes I wonder why women live in a place w/o a functioning women's clinic.

It didn't say anything about that. Sometimes I wonder why women live in a place w/o a functioning women's clinic.

*Abortion clinic.
There's plenty of places women can have their needs attended to.

I'd wonder if I'd have faith in a doctor that put religion first. What other medical treatments might I be missing that he doesn't believe in?