Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (
-   The Lounge (
-   -   S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law (

boston_aloha 03-06-2006 04:34 PM

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.
I'm prob pissing some people off by starting this debate... but this just makes me sick to my stomach, when I think of some poor woman raped and she cannot abort. Yeah she could leave SD... but could you imagine if your wife was raped and the state said you have to have the child? Thats disgusting IMO.

suedon1970 03-06-2006 04:41 PM


Originally Posted by boston_aloha
I'm prob pissing some people off by starting this debate... but this just makes me sick to my stomach, when I think of some poor woman raped and she cannot abort. Yeah she could leave SD... but could you imagine if your wife was raped and the state said you have to have the child? Thats disgusting IMO.

Or an 11 year old girl raped by a relative. I am not pro-abortion, but I think in cases like rape or incest it should be a safe, available option for every woman.

jhuerbin88 03-06-2006 05:57 PM

OK, OK, OK. I'm pro-life, but I find a serious problem with this. And just to clarify things before I go on, this doesn't even become a law until July 1st and even then a federal judge will most likely stop the law and then it will be taken to the Supreme Court and then, and only if it wins in the Supreme Court will it actually become a law. It's got a long road ahead of's going to take some time.

As for why I find a problem, simple: this is directly going against federal law. Legalized abortion is a federal law. And federal law is the supreme law of the land and takes precident over state (and local) laws. I can tell you right now that this is going to the Supreme Court and that is why this whole law made: to challenge the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is wrong and it is the killing of an innocent - not to mention voicelss - child, but that's not what I'm debating here. I'm here to say that it's not right for a state law to go against federal law. Does anybody else see a problem with it.

I will, though, say I'm impressed that a state like South Dakota is the one taking on this issue and I'm glad to see that some federal laws are finally beginning to be tested.

This is definately going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

KevinBeane 03-06-2006 06:12 PM

If the Supreme Court upholds the law - thereby allowing states to ban abortion - I think the backlash will be like nothing most of us have ever seen in terms of the protest, hue and cry. The Republicans will suffer massive electoral defeats beyond even their victories in 1994 ("The Republican Revolution"). Then at some point in the not-too-distant-future, that ruling will be overturned again, and the temporary condition of states outlawing abortion will be temporary like the Prohibition was.

But, I don't see the Supreme Court upholding the SD decision.

jhuerbin88 03-06-2006 06:27 PM

I also think that should it be upheld, the victory (or rather anti-protester) rallies will be just as big. This is a heated topic and I'm glad to see the Supreme Court will be finally taking on something so controversal.

I see the Supreme Court leaving it up to the states to decide whether abortion is legal. For some reason I have a feeling that although still the dominant law, the federal government will be shifting more power to the state governments.

HibachiDG 03-06-2006 11:50 PM

I'm not so sure that this will reach the Supreme Court. Not right away, at least. A lower court will use Roe v. Wade as precedent and then South Dakota will appeal to the Supreme Court and I think chances are good that they will be denied a hearing at that level. I think if other states start to pass laws like this, it might get heard, though. I just don't think a direct attack on Roe v. Wade will get heard quickly.


And federal law is the supreme law of the land and takes precident over state (and local) laws.
But, the problem is that many people see this as a states right issue.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but I don't necessarily think Roe v. Wade should be upheld. The no exceptions thing will probably be the downfall for the SD law, but I don't think it's too implausible to think that someday soon states will decide the matter as long as they provide for certain exceptions.

jhuerbin88 03-07-2006 12:00 AM


Originally Posted by Doug Graham
The no exceptions thing will probably be the downfall for the SD law

I agree, and I think that's a mistake (and while pro-life, I'm against that).

catman 03-07-2006 12:35 AM

There is a very good chance that this law will be struck down by all the courts it reaches, including the Supreme Court for the reason Doug listed.
This said, mental health must be considered in laws of this nature. If a girl/woman is raped (or impregnanted because of an incestuous act) and suffers mental health issues because of it, she should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy, IMO. I am not in favor of abortion on demand, however.

Richard the Lionheart 03-07-2006 01:47 AM

The issue of abortion is definitly the social issue where I would be considered most "conservative" in the traditional sense. I'm pretty liberal on most social issues, but here I am staunchly in favor of the Federal Government's right and duty to forbid the practice of abortion. I can, however, see and understand why there are people who believe in what they would call, "a woman's right to choose." That is because, while this is a very tricky and complicated moral and scientific issue, it really boils down, I think, to one issue: Where does life begin, conception or birth?

So while I can understand and respect the opinion of a pro-choice person who believes life begins at birth only, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW A PRO-LIFE INDIVIDUAL COULD EVER SUPPORT ABORTION IN CASES OF INCEST AND RAPE. While people that are against abortion except in cases of rape and incest are probably comming at that decision from a pure place, and are simply trying to be compassionate and reasonable, it is simply conflicting with their convictions.

You either believe life begins at conception or birth. If you are pro-life and believe life begins at birth then you are a tyrant limiting the rights of the populace. Afterall, if what is in the womb is not a human, it is very much in the mother's right to do with it what she pleases, it is her body. If you are pro-choice and believe life begins at conception...I'm not sure what you are, but stay the hell away from me. ;)

For the pro-lifers who have reservations about the South Dakota law because it does not allow for abortions in the cases of rape and incest, let me ask you one question: Why are you against abortion in the first place? Isn't it because you believe life is sacrosanct...and that you believe what is in the womb is a human being with inherent rights that must be protected? Maybe I'm out of the mainstream here, but that's why I'm against abortion. I don't get off on limiting people's freedom like a lot of my conservative brethren seem to do sometimes, but I believe that the act of abortion is the worst kind of violation of human right--the right to live. It is a violation of the right of the fetus. So...if you agree with me on all of that (and I know many of you don't, but I'm speaking to the pro-lifers) how can you possibly deny the RIGHT to LIFE to a human being, because that human is the product of rape or incest? It either is a human being deserving respect and possesing inalienable rights...or it is not--THERE IS NO IN-BETWEEN. If you are arguing that a fetus conceived in rape does not have the same rights as one that is not, then by that argument fully grown adults who were the product of incest or rape also do not posses those rights. You could walk up to one and punch them in the face...or shoot them, it doesn't matter. They are completely devoid of all rights under this premise. If people don't have those rights from the start, why would they have them later on? It doesn't make sense.

So, in summation, if you are pro-life you probably hold the conviction that life begins at conception. Which means that any fetus, regardless of how it was conceived, posseses inherent and inalienable human rights that cannot be violated--i.e. you can't kill it. Last I checked, people who were the products of rape or incest are still human beings. Again, all this is much much different if you are pro-choice and believe life begins at birth, I'm not arguing where life begins right now, I'm just talking to the pro-lifers here.

So how does this all square with the provision that allows an abortion to take place if the mothers life is in jeopardy, which I fully support and agree with? Perfectly, since human beings posses a natural right to self-defense. It is a long-standing principle of most civilized nations that the only time where human life may be taken is out of self-defense. You cannot be convicted of shooting someone when they were trying to shoot you first. When life is in danger, exceptions must be made.

So, I guess this will all be moot even if it does get to the Supreme Court because at least five justices would overturn this law. The only definites against it would probably be Scalia and Thomas. No one knows how Roberts or Alito would vote on it, and the rest are definite no's, unless someone knows something I don't. And *then* even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, many many states will be allowed to continue the practice of abortion...rendering the whole thing pointless anyway, well pointless except in the fact that the Federal Government would no longer condone the mass murder of its citizens (from the pro-life perspective :)). And since I'm feeling optimistic and I'd say we're about 200 years away from a Constitutional Amendment on the issue, I'd say everyone's focus should be on making sure we have as few abortions as possible. I'm not against condoms or birth control...SINCE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION IN MY OPINION. As they said on the Daily Show (and I think this is the most astute point I've ever seen the show make) if life begins every time a man thinks about having sex (which would lead to the banning of birth control), then the average man conceives a child once every three seconds!

Anthony 03-08-2006 05:13 AM

What is really interesting here is that under South Dakota law, a rapist would have full parental rights if he impregnated his victim and the baby did get carried to term - which means that after he got out of prison he would be entitled to at least visitation rights, if not joint custody of the child!

And if abortion is "murder," then why didn't the law subject both the abortionist and the woman to a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole (instead of up to five years in prison for the former and absolutely no penalty upon the latter)?

That proves that all this is really about is that a bunch of moralist busybodies want to feel good about themselves.

Richard the Lionheart 03-08-2006 04:17 PM

Rapists should have no parental rights over the child. I can't even believe that was put in the law. And I agree, if you are of the opinion that abortion is the killing of a human being, how can you make it a five year sentence for only one party? They are contradicting themselves big time with that.

Anthony 03-09-2006 03:23 AM

They didn't put that provision into the new law; apparently this has always been the law in South Dakota (and probably other states as well).

But a long time ago, abortion actually was treated legally as murder, this fact graphically demonstrated by two non-fiction movies: They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, the last scene of which consisted of both an abortionist and the woman he operated on (played by Jane Fonda!) being executed in the gas chamber in Califiornia in 1935 - and Blood and Orchids, set in 1937 Hawaii, in which a young, married socialite gets pregnant by a Navy officer (not her husband), who then hatches a plot to frame four teenage Hawaiian boys for "raping" her (in the film's most dramatic scene, the husband pulls out a gun in the courtroom at the rape trial and shoots one of the boys to death), after which she is allowed to abort the fetus; the movie ends with the woman hanging herself in her bedroom to avoid at least a very long prison term (after a determined police detective, played by Kris Kristofferson, unravels the whole thing) - if not the death penalty, which was not abolished in Hawaii until it became a state in 1959 (interestingly, the Japanese-American doctor who performed the abortion got no penalty at all, because he had been "tricked" into doing it by the frame plot, rape being a permissible exception under the then-existing law).

boston_aloha 03-09-2006 03:48 AM

Well.... this issue was brought up on a show I watched tonight. Southpark! Mr. Garrison had a sex change.... thought he was a woman and since he never had his period, he thought he was pregnant. All jokes aside, I do feel a woman has a right to choose. Who am I (or government) to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body, yeah.. HER body??
Or in Mrs. Garrison's words:

Doctor: Mmrs. Garrison, you can't have an abortion.
Mrs. Garrison: Don't you tell me what I can and can't do with my body! [gets up, goes to the nurse, and hugs her] A woman has a right to choose!
Doctor: No, I mean you're physically unable to have an abortion, because you can't get pregnant.
Mrs. Garrison: But I missed my period.
Doctor: You can't have periods either. [Mrs. Garrison looks surprised] You had a sex change, Mr. Garrison, but you don't have ovaries or a womb. You don't produce eggs.
Mrs. Garrison: [sits down] You mean, I'll never know what it feels like to have a baby growing inside me and then scramble its brains and vacuum it out?
Doctor: N-that's right.

Richard the Lionheart 03-09-2006 05:02 AM

Or, from the pro-life standpoint, who is she to make a decision to kill another human being, who posseses their own rights?

boston_aloha 03-09-2006 04:42 PM

Um... how bout its her body. Its inside her body? That gives her the right. Plus I don't consider it killing... last time I checked, killing somone would constitute "murder" written on the death cert in the "cause of death" line.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.