spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote
in message news:<6ed74dfa.0405191057.4547323f@posting.google.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote...
========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On May 19, 2004, the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan posted an
Opinion piece titled: "Poll Numbers On Abortion Say A Lot ?And
Little
http://www.yankton.net/stories/051904/opE_20040519022.shtml
______________________________________________________________________
========================================================================
[...]
South Dakota has a population of just over 1/2 million - not even the
number of a decent-size metropolitan area. It is possibly the poorest
state in the Union, and the people's political views are as
reactionary as they come. You might find this to be an interesting
read:
http://www.apj.us/20040312Baker.html
"This week, I was alarmed to see that your legislators
intend to ram a bill, HB 1191, down the throats of
victims of rape and incest. This bill attacks these
victims of horrific crimes, sentencing them to pay,
for the rest of their lives, the punishment for the
crimes committed against them -- by forcing them to
bear, and support, the seed of their rapists."
Maybe you should find a more suitable hobby besides kicking
over rocks to see what lives under them.
========================================================================
Papa Jack cites:
The lady is referring to HB1191 which would have tested
Roe v. Wade. The measure passed the House easily and
survived an 18-15 Senate vote before Gov. Mike Rounds
returned it with a style-and-form veto. The revised bill
quickly passed the House, but it failed by a single vote
in the Senate.
Here is the bill in question:
State of South Dakota
SEVENTY-NINTH SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2004
439J0700
HOUSE BILL NO. 1191
Introduced by: Representatives McCaulley, Bartling, Begalka,
Christensen, Davis, Deadrick (Thomas), Dykstra, Frost, Fryslie,
Garnos, Gassman, Gillespie, Glenski, Hackl, Hanson, Haverly, Heineman,
Hennies, Hunhoff, Juhnke, Klaudt, Koistinen, Konold, Kraus, Lange,
Lintz, Madsen, McCoy, Michels, Miles, Novstrup, Olson (Ryan), Peterson
(Bill), Peterson (Jim), Rave, Rhoden, Rounds, Schafer, Sebert, Smidt,
Solum, Teupel, Van Etten, Van Gerpen, Weems, Wick, and Williamson and
Senators Schoenbeck, Abdallah, Albers, Apa, Bogue, Earley, Greenfield,
Jaspers, Kelly, Kleven, Kloucek, Koetzle, Koskan, McCracken, Moore,
Napoli, Sutton (Duane), and Vitter
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative
findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing
the termination of an unborn human life, and to prescribe a penalty
therefor.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. The Legislature finds that the State of South Dakota
has a compelling and paramount interest in the preservation and
protection of all human life within and subject to its jurisdiction
and that the preservation and protection of human life applies to all
human life, born or unborn.
Section 2. The Legislature finds that since neither
constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the
question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of
state legislative enactment to determine the question in light of the
best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature therefor finds
that unborn human life begins when the ovum is
fertilized by male sperm.
Section 3. The Legislature finds that the guarantee of due
process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally
to born and unborn human life and that there is no other justification
for the taking of a guiltless human life by the state or by any person
within and subject to the jurisdiction of the state.
Section 4. The Legislature finds that there is no justification
for protecting an unborn human life in preference to the life of the
mother if birth or continued pregnancy constitutes a clear and
immediate threat of death to the mother or serious risk of substantial
and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
Section 5. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a
NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No person may administer to, prescribe for, or procure for any
pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the intent
of causing or abetting the termination of an unborn human life unless
it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, or if
there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of
a major bodily function. No person may use or employ any instrument or
procedure with the intent of causing or abetting the termination of an
unborn human life unless it is necessary to preserve the life of any
pregnant woman or if there is a serious risk of substantial and
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.
Section 6. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a
NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No licensed physician who terminates an unborn human life in the
exercise of reasonable medical judgment and after determining in good
faith that such termination of the unborn human
life is medically necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman
or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a
major bodily function of the pregnant woman is guilty of violating
section 5 of this Act.
Section 7. 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 developing unborn human life within her body
after the fertilization of the ovum by male sperm;
(2) "Serious risk of the substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function," any medically diagnosed
condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to
directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible physical
impairment; and
(3) "Unborn human life," an individual organism of the
species homo sapiens that begins when the ovum is fertilized by male
sperm until live birth.
Section 8. If any provision of this Act is found to be invalid,
the remaining provisions are severable.
.
|
