Throwing Down The Gauntlet

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
How long before this gets in front of the Supreme's and what will happen?

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.

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 § 34-23A-2 be repealed.

Section 7. That § 34-23A-3 be repealed.

Section 8. That § 34-23A-4 be repealed.

Section 9. That § 34-23A-5 be repealed.

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 § § 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.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You should be able to answer...

...the technical question of how long before the Supremes get it. It's gotta work it's way up the ladder, right, through a challenge after it's signed, which would send it to the state courts, then the US circuit and then on up?

Add in appeals? What's it normally take, several years?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
There it is:

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.

That is THE issue; does the unborn possess a Constitutional right to life?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That makes NO sense...

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.

You can bust the doctor for doing it but not the mom for seeking and/or allowing an abortion??
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Congratulations feti!

"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;

...you're a human being now!
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Larry Gude said:
...sets woman up as victims of abortion, not receivers of a procedure.

Isn't that normal American legislation? If you are going to act, treat the symptoms and not the cause. Its not the way it should be. Its the typical reactionary government we have.

symptom=poverty
legislation=give them money
cause=lack of skills, lack of motivation, can't do better mentality
problem=money perpetuates the symptom and doesn't treat the cause
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Does it have to work up the ladder or can it immediately go to the highest court? The 2000 election cases made it there rather quickly, days versus years.

Besides what has been brought out, my biggest problem is how on one hand they say that the unborn has equal rights to the living yet they will readily execute that same life if the mother's is in danger of dying. That doesn't sound too equal to me.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Ken King said:
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.
Ken, many feminist groups predict (incorrectly, I believe) that overturning Roe v. Wade will lead to a repeal of Griswold v. Connecticut. I like the fact that you included the section above. Once you take abortion out of the equation, I don't think government has any compelling interest in outlawing pre-conception birth control. I see that as another example of the "nanny state" mentality.
 
Last edited:

Redwing91

New Member
Ken King said:
my biggest problem is how on one hand they say that the unborn has equal rights to the living yet they will readily execute that same life if the mother's is in danger of dying. That doesn't sound too equal to me.

Maybe because women have a right to life too? Maybe because some people actually view a woman as more than just an incubator on legs? Imagine that.
The above quote is one of the reasons why I refuse to call these anti-choice men "pro-life". They don't care if women die needlessly, they usually don't care what happens to the babies after they're born, and these are the same guys who usually support the death penalty.
About the abortion ban and overturning Roe, I say let the conservative men do it. I guarantee it will blow up in their faces big-time. Because when women start dying, and being forced to carry babies for rapists and wife-beaters, it won't be swept under the rug like it was in the good old fifties. The horror stories will be on the front page of every liberal paper in the country. Any ban that gets enacted will soon go the way of Prohibition.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You're asking me?

Ken King said:
Does it have to work up the ladder or can it immediately go to the highest court? The 2000 election cases made it there rather quickly, days versus years.

Besides what has been brought out, my biggest problem is how on one hand they say that the unborn has equal rights to the living yet they will readily execute that same life if the mother's is in danger of dying. That doesn't sound too equal to me.

I bow before thou'ests legal knowledge!

You're right about Florida though; I guess it's a matter of everyone signing off on it. The Schiavo fiasco made it pretty quick as well.

???
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Who?

because some people actually view a woman as more than just an incubator on legs?

Name one.



They don't care if women die needlessly

What is more needless than an abortion? If you read the legislation sensitive Ken so thoughtfully posted, you'll see the woman's health trumps lil' baby's life.


they usually don't care what happens to the babies after they're born

Usually? What is 'usually'? Find ONE who cares. Why don't we just say 'never'?



these are the same guys who usually support the death penalty

I support the death penalty. Unless it endangers the mothers life.


and overturning Roe,

Do you know what Roe says?


Because when women start dying, and being forced to carry babies for rapists and wife-beaters, it won't be swept under the rug like it was in the good old fifties.

Women start dying? I thought there was an exception! Aren't all men rapists and wife beaters? I made my wife madder'n a wet hen Saturday. I didn't rape her or beat her though. She wanted to abort me but, I whipped out an exception for the life of the dad. She's seeking to have that overturned as we speak. I say let her try! Why, when men start dying, there'll be hell to pay! Damnable conservative women...


Any ban that gets enacted will soon go the way of Prohibition

I say if you don't want your baby, kill it. It's the only reasonable position. Ask anyone who has kids. Just so long as there remains an exception for the life of the father...
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Redwing91 said:
Maybe because women have a right to life too? Maybe because some people actually view a woman as more than just an incubator on legs? Imagine that.
The above quote is one of the reasons why I refuse to call these anti-choice men "pro-life". They don't care if women die needlessly, they usually don't care what happens to the babies after they're born, and these are the same guys who usually support the death penalty.
About the abortion ban and overturning Roe, I say let the conservative men do it. I guarantee it will blow up in their faces big-time. Because when women start dying, and being forced to carry babies for rapists and wife-beaters, it won't be swept under the rug like it was in the good old fifties. The horror stories will be on the front page of every liberal paper in the country. Any ban that gets enacted will soon go the way of Prohibition.

I'm a pro-choice man until the pro-life crowd offers to adopt every unwanted child, but I agree with Ken in that equal rights should mean that a mother's life can't take precedence over the child's life. That, to me anyway, has always been the undoing of the arguments of most pro-life people I talk to. If you're going to say that a fetus is "alive" at conception, and has rights the same as the mother, then you can't make exceptions for the health of the mother. If the God they are so trying to appease has decided that the mother will die, and the child will live, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to make exceptions for the life and health of the mother, then you have to make exceptions for whatever other reason a woman wants an abortion.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Wouldn't it make this easier...

Bruzilla said:
I'm a pro-choice man until the pro-life crowd offers to adopt every unwanted child, but I agree with Ken in that equal rights should mean that a mother's life can't take precedence over the child's life. That, to me anyway, has always been the undoing of the arguments of most pro-life people I talk to. If you're going to say that a fetus is "alive" at conception, and has rights the same as the mother, then you can't make exceptions for the health of the mother. If the God they are so trying to appease has decided that the mother will die, and the child will live, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to make exceptions for the life and health of the mother, then you have to make exceptions for whatever other reason a woman wants an abortion.

...and fairer if we just kill them both?

No favorites!
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Redwing91 said:
Maybe because women have a right to life too? Maybe because some people actually view a woman as more than just an incubator on legs? Imagine that...
On one hand, I understand why many women feel uncomfortable with men like Randall Terry being so vocal and dominant in the pro-life movement. And I think pro-choicers have a valid point about reproduction in general being a matter of personal conscience for both men and women.

Having said that, I believe abortion takes a life. Because of that, I think the personal conscience argument shouldn't apply to abortion.

It's true that the last time abortion was illegal, many states also outlawed pre-conception birth control, or restricted birth control to married women. But birth control is now readily available, as it should be. I don't understand why so many people of both genders don't do the responsible thing and take advantage of that availability. And I don't understand why a woman with an unplanned pregnancy would choose abortion over adoption.
 

Redwing91

New Member
"What is more needless than an abortion?" Answer: A woman dying because she needed one and wasn't allowed to have one. It may be a rare situation, but IMO, even one is too many. After reading all of the above posts, I have to say, you guys are clueless. Just because you don't beat your wife, or commit rape, doesn't mean no other man does either. The abuse of women is a huge problem, all over the country and the world. There are some horrible life situations a woman can get into through no fault of her own, and some of them may involve getting an abortion, unfortunately.
I don't believe that a fetus is "just a clump of cells", and I don't like the idea of women getting abortions just for convenience. But a fetus IS NOT equal to a woman. It has no consciousness, and can only live through a parasitic attachment to a woman. The woman is conscious, already has an established life and people who love her. I don't know why this is so hard for people to figure out. My sister and one of my cousins have had babies within the past year. If my sister or cousin had their lives threatened by a pregnancy complication, I would pick sister/cousin over the baby every time. The woman has to come first. Any I must say, it's funny how so many anti-choicers are men. I can't remember the last time I heard of any anti-choice woman.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Needed One?

Redwing91 said:
"What is more needless than an abortion?" Answer: A woman dying because she needed one and wasn't allowed to have one. It may be a rare situation, but IMO, even one is too many. After reading all of the above posts, I have to say, you guys are clueless. Just because you don't beat your wife, or commit rape, doesn't mean no other man does either. The abuse of women is a huge problem, all over the country and the world. There are some horrible life situations a woman can get into through no fault of her own, and some of them may involve getting an abortion, unfortunately.
I don't believe that a fetus is "just a clump of cells", and I don't like the idea of women getting abortions just for convenience. But a fetus IS NOT equal to a woman. It has no consciousness, and can only live through a parasitic attachment to a woman. The woman is conscious, already has an established life and people who love her. I don't know why this is so hard for people to figure out. My sister and one of my cousins have had babies within the past year. If my sister or cousin had their lives threatened by a pregnancy complication, I would pick sister/cousin over the baby every time. The woman has to come first. Any I must say, it's funny how so many anti-choicers are men. I can't remember the last time I heard of any anti-choice woman.


She don't need no abortion...unless her man says so.
 

Redwing91

New Member
Tonio said:
It's true that the last time abortion was illegal, many states also outlawed pre-conception birth control, or restricted birth control to married women. But birth control is now readily available, as it should be. I don't understand why so many people of both genders don't do the responsible thing and take advantage of that availability. And I don't understand why a woman with an unplanned pregnancy would choose abortion over adoption.

Many of the people who are trying to ban abortion also want to ban birth control. And if you think adoption is a good idea, take a look at the following link, http://www.amfor.net/acs/ A real eye-opener.

I think the feminist elites in this country are going to have to drop the lesbians, tree-huggers and socialists, and get back to the basics. Like educating the public that there are certain basic rights that women need to have, and the reasons we need to have them. And that there are some areas where men have no business making the rules and decisions for women.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Hmmm...

There are some horrible life situations a woman can get into through no fault of her own

Yeah, I hate it when the absolutely innocent suffer...through no fault of their own.


I don't like the idea of women getting abortions just for convenience

Of the 1,500,000 or so abortions PER year in this country, how many do you think or because or rape and/or incest? How many are because of convenience?


It has no consciousness

Hmmm. I know people like that. There's a bunch of them on death row.


I don't know why this is so hard for people to figure out. My sister and one of my cousins have had babies within the past year.

Hold your sisters or cousins baby for a few minutes. Now, imagine sticking the baby in a blender and turning it on. Viola! Abortion! What was once, a few days or weeks again, a 'choice' is now truly a blob of cells. THAT'S what's so effing hard about it. It's goddamn barbaric.

and can only live through a parasitic attachment to a woman.

You in favor of abortion right up to birth? That's where most life threatening events happen to the mom. Birth used to kill about 5% of women in this nation 150 years ago.


If my sister or cousin had their lives threatened by a pregnancy complication, I would pick sister/cousin over the baby every time. The woman has to come first.

So, if the man says "save my baby' you are against that?


I can't remember the last time I heard of any anti-choice woman

Most of them are ones who've had kids.


As I say, if you don't want it, kill it. Perhaps it's best that way.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Hey...

Redwing91 said:
Many of the people who are trying to ban abortion also want to ban birth control. And if you think adoption is a good idea, take a look at the following link, http://www.amfor.net/acs/ A real eye-opener.

I think the feminist elites in this country are going to have to drop the lesbians, tree-huggers and socialists, and get back to the basics. Like educating the public that there are certain basic rights that women need to have, and the reasons we need to have them. And that there are some areas where men have no business making the rules and decisions for women.

I have a question:


What if the man wants an abortion and she says no?

Can he then choose to not support the mom and child?
 
Top