Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 16th, 2007, 05:07 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,193
Thank God, there is still some looking out for the children

House passes abortion ban







By Bill Harlan, Journal staff



PIERRE - A new abortion ban that would go to a statewide vote in 2008 sailed through the South Dakota House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 45-25.



Now, House Bill 1293 goes to the Senate.



Unlike the abortion ban that voters rejected last November, this one has exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother - though opponents of the bill say the conditions for those exceptions are too onerous.



The exceptions in the bill, however, did win over Rep. Alan Hanks, R-Rapid City. Last year, Hanks voted against HB1215, which allowed abortions only to save the mother's life.



"I wasn't thrilled to see this bill come back this year, but that's always been my position," Hanks said after the vote.



Hanks also said the provision calling for a vote helped change his vote. "We didn't actually approve this," he said. "That's a big difference. It goes to a vote of the people. That's where this belongs."



The exceptions in the bill did not satisfy Rep. Joni Cutler, R-Sioux Falls, who called the rape and incest reporting requirements "more in the nature of a police investigation."



Cutler also said the health exception was too narrow.



HB1293 allows abortions if a doctor thinks there is "a serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system."



Cutler said that even a 1973 law that included physical, emotional, psychological and familial factors in the health of a woman was struck down by the Supreme Court.



"This bill is unconstitutional," Cutler said.



Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, an outspoken, longtime abortion foe, said, "It's absolutely incorrect to say, standing here today, that this bill is unconstitutional."



Hunt argued that the 2005 South Dakota Abortion Task Force had uncovered facts not available to the 1973 court and that those facts could persuade the Supreme Court to reverse itself, as it did on segregation. "The Supreme Court did a 180-degree turn from its earlier decision of separate but equal," Hunt said.



Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, also voted for last year's stricter abortion ban, and he is a sponsor of this year's measure. Howie began the half-hour debate on the House floor arguing that HB1293 would protect innocent unborn children, as well as vulnerable women.



"Abortion kills children," Howie said.



Howie also introduced a page and a half of amendments to the bill, which depart from the version of the bill that state Attorney General Larry Long recommended to a legislative committee on Monday.



"It looks pretty complicated and convoluted," Rep. Clayton Halverson, D-Veblen said.



Howie said the amendment was written after "significant consultation" with Long's office, and the House adopted it by a voice vote.



Kate Looby, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota, had not had time to review the amendments thoroughly, but she pointed out one that changed "date of viability" to "completion of the twentieth week following the mother's last menstrual period."



"You can't do that," Looby said. "It's unconstitutional."



Looby said she was disappointed by the House vote but optimistic the Senate would reject HB1293. "This bill allows the government to intrude into the private lives of South Dakotans," she said.



Some Black Hills area lawmakers voted against the measure, including: Reps. Mark Kirkeby, David Lust and Ed McLaughlin - all Rapid City Republicans - and Rep. Gordon Pederson, R-Wall, and Rep. Charles Turbiville, R-Deadwood.



Voting for the measure, in addition to Howie and Hanks, were Reps. Mike Buckingham, Brian Dreyer, Jeff Haverly and Don Van Etten - all of Rapid City. Also voting for the measure were House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center and Rep. Tom Hills, R-Spearfish.



Van Etten, who is a physician, told fellow House members that the bill's health exception was sound. "This does not allow you to have an abortion for a headache or a hangnail," he said.



The next fight is in the Senate, first in committee then, maybe, on the Senate floor.



Sen. Tom Katus, D-Rapid City, who ran as a pro-choice candidate in District 32, pointed out that 60 percent of his constituents voted against the previous ban.



HB1293 might have trouble getting out of committee, Katus said, though he added there would be enough votes to force it to the Senate floor, where the vote would be close. "I think you'll see moderate Republicans and Democrats coming together," Katus said.



Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, said, "It's going to be close, but it's going to pass."



Napoli said the new bill delivers what voters wanted last November - exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother.



"Abortion as a form of birth control should be stopped," he said.
Preacherman is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 05:19 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
knot_e_lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,371
Interesting that these are the exact same lawmakers that are trying to abolish school lunch programs, welfare, and healthcare for the poor.



Seems to me they are only looking out for the children before they are born. Afterward, they are SOL.
knot_e_lady is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 05:56 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 24,249
knot-e-lady -

tristanrobin is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:02 AM   #4
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
Interesting that these are the exact same lawmakers that are trying to abolish school lunch programs, welfare, and healthcare for the poor.



Seems to me they are only looking out for the children before they are born. Afterward, they are SOL.






That's hilariously STUPID!



You expect to be able to make some blanket "air-claim" and get by with it?



Yes, you'll get applause from idiots like Trista, but the rest of us are going to call your BS what it is - BS.



The fact that you CLAIM something does not even come CLOSE to making it true!



Jefferson is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:05 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 24,249
then why are there tens of thousands of unwanted children in the U.S.?



then why are there tens of thousands MORE children in state custody because of parental neglect/abuse?



actually, what knot-e-lady wrote is exactly correct.



you just don't like it because it exposes all this 'care for the children' b.s. for what it is
tristanrobin is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:07 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
knot_e_lady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,371
So, Jefferson, if you are all against abortion, how many crack babies have you adopted?
knot_e_lady is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:07 AM   #7
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin
then why are there tens of thousands of unwanted children in the U.S.?



then why are there tens of thousands MORE children in state custody because of parental neglect/abuse?



actually, what knot-e-lady wrote is exactly correct.



you just don't like it because it exposes all this 'care for the children' b.s. for what it is


Another unsubstantiated claim. No surprise here.



Why are there tens of thousands of couples trying to adopt children.





Knot-head-lady is 100% WRONG. She's spouting uninformed rhetoric about a case in SOUTH DAKOTA, idiot. Ever been to South Dakota? No, I didn't think so. Neither has Knot-Head-Lady.
Jefferson is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:08 AM   #8
Banned
 
Jefferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by knot_e_lady
So, Jefferson, if you are all against abortion, how many crack babies have you adopted?


You first:



BACK UP THE CLAIM YOU MADE A COUPLE POSTS UP.



Link it, or shut up.
Jefferson is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:08 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 24,249
jefferson doesn't have to adopt crack babies to show compassion for them - he can get online and rant and rave and piss and moan about women who choose to have abortions (in the nastiest and most mean-spirited way possible) - that's his style of compassion
tristanrobin is offline  
Old February 16th, 2007, 06:09 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 24,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson
Why are there tens of thousands of couples trying to adopt children.


because they all insist on adopting female, caucasian, blonde haired babies with no health problems



they're 'compassionate' in the same way you are - as long as it's convenient
tristanrobin is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
children, god



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't Forget, It's "for The Children" Tony Perkins Education 1 February 27th, 2012 07:02 AM
Why would Tennessee take this mom's children away from her? highway80west Current Events 4 October 7th, 2009 06:50 AM
Drugging Children intangible child Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco 6 October 4th, 2008 09:02 AM
Children used in car bombings highway80west Warfare 4 March 20th, 2007 04:01 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.