South Dakota: Political Disaster For Pro-Life?

[Sunstone]

As most of us know, South Dakota recently passed a bill into law making abortion illegal in the State in all cases except to preserve the life of the mother. Thus, the South Dakota law, if upheld, would criminalize abortions for rape, incest, the mother's health (short of life threatening), or any other reason. The question many people are asking is whether this bill is so harsh that it will drive moderates into the pro choice camp and alienate them from the pro life camp. In short, is this bill suicide for the pro life groups in South Dakota?

Would such a bill be political suicide where you live?

How much can abortion be restricted without driving moderates into the pro choice camp, thus defeating the attempt to restrict it?

What do you think?

 

[Mister Emu]

If the people have a choice between compeltely restricted abortion and completely free abortion, it might be that they will choose completely restricted...

Also I don't see how full restriction will drive moderates to free choice anymore than free choice drove them to support full restriction(I haven't heard of moderates supporting full restriction legislature)...

 

[CaptainXeroid]

In short, is this bill suicide for the pro life groups in South Dakota?

No. I don't remember the poll numbers, but IIRC, most people in South Dakota support this bill. If anything, being among the first states to pass one may actually strengthen the 'pro life' cause.

Would such a bill be political suicide where you live?

No, and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see a such a bill in Georgia if the Republicans have a strong showing in this November election.

How much can abortion be restricted without driving moderates into the pro choice camp, thus defeating the attempt to restrict it?

Well...that kinda' depends on the moderates. My impression is that most moderates on this issue do not 'like aboriton' and as long as exceptions are allowed for pregancies that result from rape or incest or that endanger the mother's life, they would not likely be driven into the pro choice camp.

What do you think?

My personal view is that my personal view should not be law on this issue. I believe that abortion is the murder of an unborn baby and is morally wrong, but I would not vote for an abortion ban.

Some people might label me a coward for not 'standing behind' my beliefs, but I consider my view pragmatic. If a woman is considering ending her pregnancy, she's clearly not ready to be a parent. As much as I weep for the soul of her unborn baby, I recognize the cost society would probably have to bear. Economically through various welfare programs, and socially as 'unwanted' children are more likely to end up in state custody: foster care, juvenile detention, or the prison system.

I don't think it's a good idea to 'tie' a doctor's hands by potentially criminializing what may be the only way to save a mother's life. I realize the law is supposed to have exceptions, but what if fear of prosecution causes a doctor to hesitate? What if he clearly did act to save the mother's life, but an overzealous DA brings charges anyway? I can see it happening.

I find the tactics of the pro-life crowd offensive and at time hypocritical.
I find the rhetoric of the pro-choice crowd morally bankrupt and promoting a double-standard.
Truthfully, I consider myself a 'moderate' because these 2 extremists camps push me AWAY from their cause. :thud:
And that's about all I have to say about that.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, Captain and Mr. Emu, the test of this is going to come in November when the Dakota law will be on the ballot for an up or down vote by the people. How do you think that will go?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Well, Captain and Mr. Emu, the test of this is going to come in November when the Dakota law will be on the ballot for an up or down vote by the people. How do you think that will go?

I'm not holding myself out as an expert on South Dakota politics , but were I a betting man, I'd put money on 'yes'. From what I've read, some voters are excited about South Dakota being a 'test case' for possibly overturning Roe v Wade.

One side note...this November's elections are going to be extremely important, especially for a 'mid-term'. The balance of Congress and the fate of state constitutional amendments and/or referendums could hinge on voter turnout, ie who shows up at the polls.

 

[Jaymes]

I voted yes, mostly out of hope that there are still some sensible people in South Dakota.

 

[Ciscokid]

How many people live in South Dakota? Like 14? I don't think this will matter much.

 

[evearael]

How much can abortion be restricted without driving moderates into the pro choice camp, thus defeating the attempt to restrict it?

I consider myself pro-life, but this law simply goes too far. I hope it is overturned.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How many people live in South Dakota?

It matters because if it's constitutional to have this kind of legislation in South Dakota, it is constitutional everywhere.

I've been living in a cave and I haven't heard about this - unless I've forgotten - I just cannot figure out the legality of this. I guess my understanding of Supreme Court rulings is off or the South Dakota law is somehow written around Roe v Wade and other court descisions, but I can't see how that is possible.

EDIT: Check this out...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html

"Even without this latest ban, South Dakota was already one of the most difficult states in the country in which to get an abortion, those on both sides of the issue say. It is one of three states with only one abortion provider (Mississippi and North Dakota are the others), and its one clinic, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, offers the procedure only once a week. Four doctors who fly in from Minnesota on a rotating basis perform the abortions, since no doctor in South Dakota will do so because of the heavy stigma attached."

"About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota, which has a population of 770,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles. Last year, South Dakota passed five laws to restrict abortions, including one that would compel doctors to tell women that they would be ending the life of a "whole, separate, unique human being." That law has been blocked by a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood."

From another article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600747.html

"The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer."

"Women in the western side of the state don't think about abortion until they need to," said Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's state director, "and then they're completely shocked that there's no way to receive that care unless they go to Sioux Falls." Even women in a medical or life-threatening emergency have only one hospital to go to that will perform an emergency abortion, she added. "One hospital. In the entire state, again in Sioux Falls."

Some stats are here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/south_dakota.html

 

[Flappycat]

The bill is illegal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The bill is illegal.

It's a good case study for the conservative Christian's blatant disrespect for the law.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

O boy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Napoli

Napoli entered the spotlight by virtue of several public statements he made regarding the legislation H.B. 1215, enacted in 2006, to limit abortion access in South Dakota to those cases in which the woman's life would be danger, possibly anticipating or inviting a repudiation of Roe v. Wade by the Roberts Court.

Among his statements were:

"When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again." [1]

Asked about a possible exception to that rule, Napoli replied:

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." [1]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now this is funny:

Note: the phone numbers in the strip are real - he's been complaining about abusive phone calls. :sad:

 

[Saint George]

Abortion is a socioeconomic issue and not a legal issue. It would be nice to pass a law that would make abortion illegal and have the effect of actually reducing or eliminating the number of abortions. But, that's just wishful thinking. It's equivalent to assuming that laws against drunk driving will remove drunks from our nation's highways.

The only way to really reduce abortions is through better education, providing prenatal and post natal health care to the mother and child, providing quality child care like they have in Europe so that the mother or parents can work without having to worry about the care of their child, passing a real "Family Leave Act" that would guarantee that employees can take time off to take care of their newborns without having to worry about getting laid off, providing tax relief for the mother and newborn, and perhaps most important is to remove the stigma of having a child out of wedlock.

Yes, the ideal situation is to have a child be born to two loving and married parents and we should encourage that. But, what about the young woman who gets pregnant and decides to have the child? More often than not, this woman has to face the indignity of her parents, her coworkers and her friends for making a mistake and ruining her life. Those who criticize and make her feel uncomfortable are part of the same crowd who want to pass laws to make abortion illegal. That type of criticism towards pregnant single women is not helpful and it's certainly not something that Christ would approve of. It's also interesting to note that those politicians who have supported laws against abortion are many of the same politicians who refused to vote for the Family Leave Act of 1995.

I'm all for pro life. But, we are not going to get there by passing laws. It is a socioeconomic issue and that's the only approach that will work.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Abortion is a socioeconomic issue and not a legal issue.

If it's not a legal issue, why are there legal arguments, laws, and court cases concerning abortion? It most certainly is a legal issue because some people try to use the legal system (fines, jail time, and revoking of medical liscenses) to come between a woman and her doctor!

In your oversimplification of this problem, you've also completely ignored the medical issues.

 

[Mister Emu]

The bill is illegal.

We'll find out if it passes...