# Well that didn't take long. SD Senate votes 23-12 to ban nearly all abortions.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 23, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712 "2006-02-23T00:47:05Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/1 "2006-02-23T00:47:05Z")
The South Dakota Senate has voted to ban nearly all abortions, including those resulting from incest or rape. The only exceptions would be cases where it’s necessary to protect the mother’s life.
The House passed a similar law earlier, and now they need only work out the differences between the two versions, before it goes to the Governor’s desk for signing. Said Governor is on record as an abortion opponent, but has declined to comment on this legislation for not wanting to influence the legislators’ decisions.
I’m sure that the pro-choice side is already preparing challenges, even though the announcement was made only hours ago. But this full frontal attack on Roe was not expected. Some antichoice activists and politicians have even been hiding their hands, so to speak, asserting that they want to chip away gradually at it rather than aim a cannon point blank. Clearly, at least in South Dakota, this is not the case.
Clearly the conservatives have the upper hand and are not shy about using it. One can only wonder what will come next.
---
### Author:  [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/2 "2006-02-23T00:53:56Z")
Forgot the link.
[Link](http://wcco.com/local/local_story_053174838.html).
There are many more if you just google “South Dakota abortion ban”.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/3 "2006-02-23T01:00:40Z")
Well, what does “self-government” mean? Is it not our expression of common will through the legislative process by our elected lawmakers ?
Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land. However, I - and many others - do not believe that the supreme law of the land should be interpreted to have any voice on the issue of abortion. The supreme law of the land should be correctly interpreted as being silent on the issue of abortion.
Now, that’s not the case just now. But perhaps it will be, soon. And if it is, then we return to a system in which the people, through their elected representatives, make the law they wish, not in conflict with the constitution. It sounds like a good development to me.
---
### Author:  [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/4 "2006-02-23T01:21:15Z")
I’ll be honest about my position. First of all, I’m pro-choice as you probably guessed. Actually, I’m pro-choice in most things, any number of which have greater potential to affect me personally as I’m male, and my wife and stepdaughter are most unlikely to find themselves “in trouble” as they used to say.
But I see the abortion issue as a weather vane, for it indicates whether to place a decision about one’s own body with that individual, or with the state. Furthermore, if it’s really true that there have been 40 million-odd abortions since 1973, I have to wonder how well we could handle the the pressures of 40 million more people populating this country. In Los Angeles, for instance, we’re barely scraping by with the schools we’ve got now. The possible effect on society of millions of more young people, mostly poor, whose parents didn’t want them in the first place, is not a happy thought.
Of course, far better than abortion is “pre-bortion”, or preventing an unplanned pregnancy in the first place. I’d feel a lot less disturbed about this if I could convince myself that the pro-life side is interested in preventing the need for abortion rather than simply banning the procedure, but IME that’s usually not part their mindset.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/5 "2006-02-23T01:36:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land. However, I - and many others - do not believe that the supreme law of the land should be interpreted to have any voice on the issue of abortion. The supreme law of the land should be correctly interpreted as being silent on the issue of abortion.
The “supreme law of the land” should preserve people’s civil rights, or there’s not much point in having law at all. Preventing women from being reduced to walking wombs qualifies.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Now, that’s not the case just now. But perhaps it will be, soon. And if it is, then we return to a system in which the people, through their elected representatives, make the law they wish, not in conflict with the constitution. It sounds like a good development to me.
The return of Jim Crow, and probably worse is hardly good.
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/6 "2006-02-23T01:37:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land.
and
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> It sounds like a good development to me.
Your blatant hypocrisy is amazing. Perhaps you should rephrase your first sentence to "Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land, unless I disagree with the supreme law of the land.
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/7 "2006-02-23T01:41:47Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#):
>
> Clearly the conservatives have the upper hand and are not shy about using it. One can only wonder what will come next.
The next battle will be over the [Partial Birth Abortion Act](http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html), which the [SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case about.](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/politics/21cnd-abortion.html?hp&ex=1140584400&en=242e3e34dd69e98d&ei=5094&partner=homepage) This one ought to be interesting, to say the least.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/8 "2006-02-23T01:42:18Z")
This will die in the SCOTUS. There are 5 guaranteed votes to uphold Roe, and of the 4 remaining, I seriously doubt that Roberts would vote to overturn it either. Thomas almost certainly would overturn it, Scalia might, and Alito might.
It should be noted that no doctor resident in SD will perform abortions today. An elderly doctor from MN flies in once a week to perfrom abortions (it might be more than once a week, but it’s not everyday).
Does anyone have a link that actually shows the bill? The descriptions I’ve seen only say that it bans “most abortions”. Does it only allow for abortions if the life of the mother is in danger?
---
### Author:  [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/9 "2006-02-23T01:46:29Z")
> [@treis](#):
>
> The next battle will be over the [Partial Birth Abortion Act](http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html), which the [SCOTUS has agreed to hear a case about.](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/politics/21cnd-abortion.html?hp&ex=1140584400&en=242e3e34dd69e98d&ei=5094&partner=homepage) This one ought to be interesting, to say the least.
…ehnnn… AFAIK this one is isn’t very significant as the procedure in question is extremely rare. Even many pro-choicers find late term abortions repugnant.
---
### Author:  [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/10 "2006-02-23T01:48:19Z")
> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> Your blatant hypocrisy is amazing. Perhaps you should rephrase your first sentence to "Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land, unless I disagree with the supreme law of the land.
I apologize. I misread your post as supporting the legislation in South Dakota and, when it should have been supporting the overturning of Roe, Casey, et al. You’re not being hypocritical at this, and I apologize for saying you were.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/11 "2006-02-23T01:49:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#):
>
> and
>
> Your blatant hypocrisy is amazing. Perhaps you should rephrase your first sentence to "Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land, unless I disagree with the supreme law of the land.
There is a process for changing the supreme law of the land. There are actually TWO such processes.
I have no hypocrisy here at all. I certainly don’t want a law to flout the Constitution. I DO want the understanding of what the Constitution means to change. Since the original decision in this regard is, in my view, flawed, why shouldn’t I be eager to see it overturned?
Now, there is actually a second way of changing the Constitution. People that want to enshrine abortion as a protected civil right should avail themselves of that second method, which involves super-majorities in the Congress and of the state legislatures. That’s the more honest approach… changing it via judicial decision has a number of problems, and perhaps the one that is most evident now is that all it takes to change it back is five Supreme Court justices. That was the method used to swing it one way. How can you complain if the precise method is now used to change it again?
---
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/12 "2006-02-23T01:59:45Z")
I am pro-choice but I think that _Roe v. Wade_ is a poorly written opinion looking more like “This is what the Constitution should say” rather than a natual reading of unenumerated rights and an extension of _Griswold_. I was also bothered by how Texas’ claim to have an interest in the life of the fetus was dismissed so readily.
I favor a new challenge to _Roe_ if for no other reason to get a better argument for or against abortion than we currently have.
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/13 "2006-02-23T02:03:19Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#):
>
> …ehnnn… AFAIK this one is isn’t very significant as the procedure in question is extremely rare. Even many pro-choicers find late term abortions repugnant.
No, its much more significant than that. It will decide whether the State can decide that a certain abortion proceedure is without medical value, or if that decision has to remain with a woman and her doctor.
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/14 "2006-02-23T02:06:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> There is a process for changing the supreme law of the land. There are actually TWO such processes.
>
> I have no hypocrisy here at all. I certainly don’t want a law to flout the Constitution. I DO want the understanding of what the Constitution means to change. Since the original decision in this regard is, in my view, flawed, why shouldn’t I be eager to see it overturned?
>
> Now, there is actually a second way of changing the Constitution. People that want to enshrine abortion as a protected civil right should avail themselves of that second method, which involves super-majorities in the Congress and of the state legislatures. That’s the more honest approach… changing it via judicial decision has a number of problems, and perhaps the one that is most evident now is that all it takes to change it back is five Supreme Court justices. That was the method used to swing it one way. How can you complain if the precise method is now used to change it again?
Why are pro-life supporters concentrating their efforts on passing a constitutional amendment giving Congress, or the states, the power to regulate abortion, if the judicial process is so fraught with dishonesty, and potential problems?
---
### Author:  [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/15 "2006-02-23T02:11:35Z")
I just noticed that, rather ironically, the home re-fi add on the page that I linked to, for where it says “click your state”, has a STORK, with the individual feathers representing the states.
Or maybe it was a flamingo…whatever.
---
### Author:  [@Gladstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gladstone)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/16 "2006-02-23T03:29:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Does anyone have a link that actually shows the bill?
Here’s the SD House version of the bill (I couldn’t find the Senate version online).
> [@2006 South Dakota House Bill No. 1215](#):
>
> 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.
In addition, in a joint resolution between the SD House and Senate, they both agreed to put forth a state constitutional amendment at the next election. The amendment would be “§ 28. This Constitution shall not be construed to grant any right relating to abortion.”
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/17 "2006-02-23T03:55:22Z")
Interesting. Note how they try to make a “scientific” argument out of what is actually a religious one. And note that they exempt the woman from prosecution. And note that they use “totally unique”-- valley speak has triumphed!
> [@](#):
>
> …human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization…
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/18 "2006-02-23T04:32:07Z")
I predict that ten years from now, conservatives are going to wish they had never opening this Pandora’s box. Ever since Roe v Wade, conservatives have been able to have it both ways on abortion - they can throw some red meat to the pro-life voters but without panicking their pro-choice supporters because their hands were tied. Now the ropes are off and they’ll be expected to start delivering laws. And what I expect they’re going to find is that it for every pro-life voter they gain by enacting pro-life legislation they will lose a pro-choice voter. And vice versa if they try to go that route. Conservative legislators are going to find that there are conservative voters who are prepared to vote on the single issue of abortion - and they have opposing views on that issue.
---
### Author:  [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/19 "2006-02-23T04:36:26Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#):
>
> I’m sure that the pro-choice side is already preparing challenges, even though the announcement was made only hours ago. But this full frontal attack on Roe was not expected.
This was completely expected. I’ve expected it since O’Connor announced her retirement, and I’m pretty sure that NARAL is paying at least as much attention as I am.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [February 23, 2006, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712/20 "2006-02-23T05:01:41Z")
If this goes to the SCOTUS, it’ll be the most healthy thing we’ve done in years. As I said earlier, there is no way the SCOTUS will uphold this law, but it will require all the justices to go on record as to whether \*Roe \*deserves to be accorded _stare decisis_ status. No more guessing.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/well-that-didnt-take-long-sd-senate-votes-23-12-to-ban-nearly-all-abortions/345712.md?page=2)