SD Gov plans to sing anti abortion b.ill

SPOCAHP ANAR · 02-25-2006, 03:11 PM

Before anyone goes off and starts PISSING IN THE ADMIN'S POT; this topic is for discussion of the role that the Supreme court will play in this ruling. Keep it civil and no flaming.

House sends abortion bill to Rounds (video)
Governor says he's inclined to sign ban

BY MEGAN MYERS @ TERRY WOSTER
Argus Leader

Article Published: 02/24/06, 12:26 pm

PIERRE – As the South Dakota House of Representatives gave final approval today to a bill aimed at banning most abortions and creating a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Gov. Mike Rounds said he’s inclined to sign it.

The House gave final approval to the bill with a 50-18 vote Friday afternoon.

At a press conference Friday morning, Rounds said he will sign the bill if he determines that it can save lives.

“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds said. “If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.”

But Rounds said he didn’t necessarily agree with the “frontal assault” tactic the bill takes to overturning the decision that legalized abortion.

“Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe v. Wade,” he said.

The bill would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota. That’s unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and the goal of the legislation is to force the high court to take a fresh look at its 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.

Both chambers of the Legislature now have passed the bill, and it could be delivered to the governor by early next week.

If Rounds signs the bill, abortion rights advocates have said they plan to file a lawsuit to keep it from taking effect July 1.

“I have to say I’m disappointed in the news that the governor has indicated he would sign the bill,” Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said Thursday.

“We’re still hopeful he’ll hear the voices of women and families in South Dakota that say, ‘Please don’t sign this bill; please protect the health and safety of the women in this state.’ ”

Rounds said Friday that he would have 15 days to review the bill and make sure it does what sponsors say it does. Rounds could either sign the bill, exercise a couple of different veto options or allow the bill to pass without his signature.

“My inclination, once again, it sounds like a hedge when I say it, but truly we will look at the fine details in the bill to make sure it does what the sponsors intend it to do first,’’ he said.

Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, said he expects the governor to sign the measure into law.

“We’ve fixed his concerns from two years ago and fixed the contents of the bill,” Hunt said. “We’ll know within probably about 15 days, because that’s the time that he would have to file a veto.”

troy2000 · 02-25-2006, 03:56 PM

I don't think it'll even get as far as the Supreme Court. Whatever a lower court says will go, and the Supreme Court will decline to accept it for review.

I'm not saying that the subject will never get there, but If they ruled on this so soon after Alioto and Roberts were confirmed, it would look like a payoff to their supporters and Bush for getting the job.

This one's also too black and white. I think anti-abortion politicians would rather squeeze abortion slowly to death over a period of years, while milking the issue for votes and money.

It's the most profitable issue they have that resonates with average voters instead of big business.

troylaplante · 02-25-2006, 07:07 PM

I am one to vote for someone for rewarding a good job done rather than on the promise that they will perform a good job. The proof is in the performance. A lot of people think that way. It is one of the main reasons that many Americans came out to vote this last presidential election. Most people realize that it takes time to hit with a big agenda item like this, but I do believe that they could possibly pull it off politically.

The make up of Supreme Court was a big reason that people were hugely in support of Bush in the last election, even if they did not agree with him on many issues. I was one of them. A lot of others I know are like minded.

Seeing that is the case, I do believe that it just may go to the SCOTUS. Those in power know that some of their re-elections and power base depend upon the populace seeing the good job to be rewarded and will exert sufficient pressure and influence to make it happen. That was the reason that both nominations to the SCOTUS went through as they did. The climate is right...if they have the 'nads.

Mooseman684 · 02-25-2006, 07:33 PM

I wish they would leave it up to the States to decide, and not the Supreme court. States should have the say so, period. Does anyone else find it strange that they couldn't get a Doctor to help with a court ordered execution in California, Due to the Hipocratic Oath, but the same Doctors will perform abortions ? I'm Confused and I can't find anything about Abortion in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights! But I do find States Rights!

Shaun · 02-25-2006, 07:46 PM

The thing is -- it is not the courts responsibility to decide this issue it is up to those in the house and senate to make a law either way then vote on it knowing that they will have to face the voters. At no point should the courts be involved in this as there is no existing law

troylaplante · 02-25-2006, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooseman684

I wish they would leave it up to the States to decide, and not the Supreme court.

I am with you on that. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs is that it was fed interference, making it a national issue. It needs to be rectified at that level and then left to the states thereafter.

troy2000 · 02-25-2006, 11:23 PM

I seriously doubt that the anti-abortion crowd would be willing to leave it up to the states. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, they'll go for a Federal ban on abortion in its place.

It's been my experience that many who claim to be pro-states' rights change their minds in a hurry whenever the states don't agree with them even on minor matters, and this is a subject that people are passionate about.

02-25-2006, 03:11 PM	#1
SPOCAHP ANAR Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: SC-upstate Posts: 4,192 Images: 1 Blog Entries: 6	SD Gov plans to sing anti abortion b.ill Before anyone goes off and starts PISSING IN THE ADMIN'S POT; this topic is for discussion of the role that the Supreme court will play in this ruling. Keep it civil and no flaming. House sends abortion bill to Rounds (video) Governor says he's inclined to sign ban BY MEGAN MYERS @ TERRY WOSTER Argus Leader Article Published: 02/24/06, 12:26 pm PIERRE – As the South Dakota House of Representatives gave final approval today to a bill aimed at banning most abortions and creating a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Gov. Mike Rounds said he’s inclined to sign it. The House gave final approval to the bill with a 50-18 vote Friday afternoon. At a press conference Friday morning, Rounds said he will sign the bill if he determines that it can save lives. “I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong, and that we should do everything we can to save lives,” Rounds said. “If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.” But Rounds said he didn’t necessarily agree with the “frontal assault” tactic the bill takes to overturning the decision that legalized abortion. “Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe v. Wade,” he said. The bill would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota. That’s unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and the goal of the legislation is to force the high court to take a fresh look at its 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. Both chambers of the Legislature now have passed the bill, and it could be delivered to the governor by early next week. If Rounds signs the bill, abortion rights advocates have said they plan to file a lawsuit to keep it from taking effect July 1. “I have to say I’m disappointed in the news that the governor has indicated he would sign the bill,” Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said Thursday. “We’re still hopeful he’ll hear the voices of women and families in South Dakota that say, ‘Please don’t sign this bill; please protect the health and safety of the women in this state.’ ” Rounds said Friday that he would have 15 days to review the bill and make sure it does what sponsors say it does. Rounds could either sign the bill, exercise a couple of different veto options or allow the bill to pass without his signature. “My inclination, once again, it sounds like a hedge when I say it, but truly we will look at the fine details in the bill to make sure it does what the sponsors intend it to do first,’’ he said. Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, said he expects the governor to sign the measure into law. “We’ve fixed his concerns from two years ago and fixed the contents of the bill,” Hunt said. “We’ll know within probably about 15 days, because that’s the time that he would have to file a veto.” __________________ Spocrest Out!..........

02-25-2006, 07:33 PM	#4
Mooseman684 Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Alaska Wilderness Posts: 10,528 Images: 2	I wish they would leave it up to the States to decide, and not the Supreme court. States should have the say so, period. Does anyone else find it strange that they couldn't get a Doctor to help with a court ordered execution in California, Due to the Hipocratic Oath, but the same Doctors will perform abortions ? I'm Confused and I can't find anything about Abortion in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights! But I do find States Rights! __________________ You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM!

02-25-2006, 07:46 PM	#5
Shaun Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 8,619 Images: 1	The thing is -- it is not the courts responsibility to decide this issue it is up to those in the house and senate to make a law either way then vote on it knowing that they will have to face the voters. At no point should the courts be involved in this as there is no existing law __________________ "Homeland Security is the responsibility of an armed citizen" ME http://webpages.charter.net/s.s.v/

02-25-2006, 11:23 PM	#7
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 10,020 Images: 9	I seriously doubt that the anti-abortion crowd would be willing to leave it up to the states. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, they'll go for a Federal ban on abortion in its place. It's been my experience that many who claim to be pro-states' rights change their minds in a hurry whenever the states don't agree with them even on minor matters, and this is a subject that people are passionate about. Last edited by troy2000; 02-26-2006 at 12:16 AM.

02-25-2006, 03:56 PM	#2
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 10,020 Images: 9	I don't think it'll even get as far as the Supreme Court. Whatever a lower court says will go, and the Supreme Court will decline to accept it for review. I'm not saying that the subject will never get there, but If they ruled on this so soon after Alioto and Roberts were confirmed, it would look like a payoff to their supporters and Bush for getting the job. This one's also too black and white. I think anti-abortion politicians would rather squeeze abortion slowly to death over a period of years, while milking the issue for votes and money. It's the most profitable issue they have that resonates with average voters instead of big business.

02-25-2006, 07:07 PM	#3
troylaplante Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Selma, NC Posts: 2,223	I am one to vote for someone for rewarding a good job done rather than on the promise that they will perform a good job. The proof is in the performance. A lot of people think that way. It is one of the main reasons that many Americans came out to vote this last presidential election. Most people realize that it takes time to hit with a big agenda item like this, but I do believe that they could possibly pull it off politically. The make up of Supreme Court was a big reason that people were hugely in support of Bush in the last election, even if they did not agree with him on many issues. I was one of them. A lot of others I know are like minded. Seeing that is the case, I do believe that it just may go to the SCOTUS. Those in power know that some of their re-elections and power base depend upon the populace seeing the good job to be rewarded and will exert sufficient pressure and influence to make it happen. That was the reason that both nominations to the SCOTUS went through as they did. The climate is right...if they have the 'nads.