Written by Staff
Monday, 06 March 2006

In yet another move by U.S. state lawmakers to have abortion outlawed throughout the country, it was announced on Monday that the Governor of South Dakota has signed legislation which in effect renders abortion illegal in that state.

The bill was initiated as a way of forcing the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade which recognized a woman's right to chose. South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds who has publically stated that he is morally opposed to abortion has, by signing this bill into law essentially set women in that state back by thirty years. The bill in its current form makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. Pregnany as the result of rape or incest is not considered an exception. Physicians could face up to 5 years in prison and a fine of several thousand dollars for performing the procedure.

Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky have introduced similar anti-abortion measures this year.
Well before this latest anti-abortion move, South Dakota laws made it extremely difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion with only one abortion provider and one clinic maintained by the Sioux Falls-based Planned Parenthood clinic who offers the procedure only once per week. No physician in the state will perform the procedure for fear of reprisal so doctors fly in from surrounding states. In 2005 doctors in South Dakota were compelled by new more restrictive laws to inform women seeking an abortion that they would be killing a "whole, separate, unique human being." Planned Parenthood however has managed to block that law.

In a statement released earlier today Gov. Rounds is quoted as saying, "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

Other supporters of the bill believe that the time is right for challenging the Roe v. Wade ruling considering the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the court. This new Supreme Court shaped by U.S. President George W. Bush has the potential of re-writing the country's current abortion laws or at the very least to place severe restrictions on the procedure.

Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter said today after the ruling was announced, "We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota. We will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block [the bill]."

this may be just me, but imo, it isn't guys business, and the girl should decide for herself

Opposing abortus is totally perverted. Protecting the 'innocent' fetus who 'can't defend itself' is a pathological redemption for and the mirror image of what would best be described as 'the Guantanamo logic' where adults are put in the position from where they can't defend themselves and are stripped of all rights. This goes for every regime in the world, not just the American. 'Giving every conceived human a chance' mirrors the 'absolutely no chance' politics of Guantanamo (or Abu Ghraib and similar, not necessarily 'negative' institutions). It's two sides of the same coin. Only people with guilty conscience can oppose abortus.

this may be just me, but imo, it isn't guys business, and the girl should decide for herself

Ultimately, the decision does come down to the woman, but I firmly believe that the father has a right to a say in the matter.

I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion as it's something that tends to result in argument rather than debate, and personally, I do see it as a grey area, where I can understand both perspectives.

Would I say that I believe that an abortion is totally "right"? - No
Would I say that I think there are nto cases where it is arguably the "right" thing to do? - No
Would I condemn anyone for doing it? - No

I really dont think that the issue of abortion is what the "pro-choicers" are all about. When you think really hard about what takes place during an abortion, I bet there will be very few people who would condone such a ghastly act. I went to a Lutheran private school and they made it a point to show us footage of an actual abortion, and I might say, after witnessing it, my views regarding the procedure could not help but be swayed.

I think the thing that is at stake really is the slow erosion of our personal freedoms here in the states. I think these people know that it is high time to start this process of outlaw before the conservatives, "get kicked the hell outta office."

It is a sad thing that something like abortion MUST exist in the world. Abortion is not going to go away, just like booze didn't when it was outlawed here in the twenties. I am not sure, but I think I have heard from a few friends that Marijuana is still around. The reason that legalized abortion must exist is to protect those who would abort under any circumstance, which means back alley abortions and the horrible butchery that is involved.

To be honest, I am growing increasingly tired of the shortsightedness of this country's leadership. Just once I would love to see a justification for this whittling away of our rights that had nothing to do with God or Jesus or what they would want us to do. I have read the bible many times and, as of yet, I have found nothing in there about abortion or stem cells or cloning, or even Women getting married to each other.

The problem with this issue is that politics, as usual, interfere with the situation at hand. Abortion should be decided on a case-by-case system. For instance, consider this scenario:

A 20-year-old female, going to college and barely able to afford rent, is then kidnapped and violently raped. She conceives because of this act. Let's say in this case that she had absolutely no plans to have a child because she was neither mentally or financially ready to have one. Should she have to go through the anguish and torture of giving birth to child she never wanted or was prepared for? Are we saying bastard children of rape victims are going to be able to lead normal lives? If they are born, is it the mother's responsibilty to explain to the child how it was conceived?

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

Do you see how a broad, general ruling is grossly inappropriate for this topic? Each case should be scrutinzed carefully and no decision should come lightly.

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

Dude, are you serious? You would use a child as a punishment for her promiscuity? "You had unprotected sex, now face the consequences, have a kid!" What the fuck has a child to do with the recklessness of the mother? Especially in these cases abortion should be an option! The process itself is gross, therefore not something a woman enjoys, now isn't that enough of a punishment, to have something cut inside of you and flushed out? Keeping the child doesn't make the girl face the consequences, it's the child who has to face the consequence of her actions. If the girl is stupid and aborts everytime she has sex that's HER problem, not of the child.

On the contrary, the only right thing is a broad general ruling. She decides, no one - especially those who won't be there for the child (moral majority, priests, bureaucracy dicks etc.) - has the right to impose anything on the woman. It sickens me how some people want to change, rule and fuck up other people's lives (not meaning you but those in parentheses) and they can't even justify it without lashing out.

it should be there simpley as an option, you don't agree with abortion? don't have one...

and i totally agree goat it would be the child that suffers not the mother

Totally agree with Gozu.

It's obscene to make someone give birth if they don't want to.

Why does right wing america want all these foetus' to live anyway? What are they going to do with them all? I'd like to see the rich religious right wingers take them in. It only seems fair as they lobbied to outlaw abortion.

So if a girl gets raped in South Dakota, she might wind up raising the rapist's child? *sigh*

A lot has already been said about this matter, and it gets me extremely angry, but I'm not gonna rant here because it will only fuel my rage... But a Bill Hicks quote jumps to mind though:

"A two month-old foetus in a woman's belly isn't a human, it a bunch of cells.... You're not a human, till you're in my PHONEBOOK."

Against abortion? Don't have one.

Let me guess, South Dakota is one of those sickeningly fanatic religious states stuck in the 1800's?

Against abortion? Don't have one.

Nuff said.

it should be there simpley as an option, you don't agree with abortion? don't have one...

and i totally agree goat it would be the child that suffers not the mother

Too bloody right. The last thing I am is an expert on the matter, but in my time as a schoolteacher I saw too many kids who had been raised by parents who didn't want them and were completely unable/unwilling to do the job of parenting properly. I've seen kids with the worst lives imaginable, and you can practically see them dying inside with your very eyes. It may seem a horrible idea, but I have wondered if their parents should have just aborted rather than take on a child they're never going to look after or raise properly - and in some cases, never even love - and completely fuck their lives up before they've even had a chance to live it. And of course, there's the whole question of rape pregnancies, which is a completely different ballgame...

A-Daamage is totally right, each case needs to be judged in its own right. But personally, I wonder why these people who have the power - and, allegedly, the desire - to safeguard childrens' welfare don't put more effort into making sure that more of the kids who already are born are raised by loving parents who know/care what the fuck they're doing. But then again, that means they wouldn't have anything as clear and dramatic as 'murder' to work with, would they? They can't be dealing with greys: they might wind up being wrong about something! The problem with outraged people is, they too often fall in love with themselves when they're outraged. And don't forget, families win votes! It seems to me that these types are so obsessed with the foetus they don't actually give a shit what happens to 'em once the umbilical cord gets snipped.

Again, I'm not expert (not even close), but to me parenthood is something you have to be ready for, and if you're not you'd better get yourself up to speed real bloody quick or don't do it at all.

Now, consider this scenario: a 16-year-old female has consentual, unprotected sex with at least three different males, ages ranging from 16 to 24. She never considers any type of birth control and doesn't care about any consequences which result from her actions. She conceives because of these actions. Should she not have to face the consequences of these actions? Is it not her responsibility to accept the consequences of her actions and deal with the possibility of a pregnancy?

Dude, are you serious? You would use a child as a punishment for her promiscuity? "You had unprotected sex, now face the consequences, have a kid!" What the fuck has a child to do with the recklessness of the mother? Especially in these cases abortion should be an option! The process itself is gross, therefore not something a woman enjoys, now isn't that enough of a punishment, to have something cut inside of you and flushed out? Keeping the child doesn't make the girl face the consequences, it's the child who has to face the consequence of her actions. If the girl is stupid and aborts everytime she has sex that's HER problem, not of the child.

I took his post as being there to raise the point...that the two situations are very different and that one rule may not be suitable for all. However, that is always the dilemma of laws. How exactly do you prove the truth or determine what is right for each individual? (not aimed at anyone here...just raising the issue)