Right to Choose in South Dakota
Wed, 2008-09-17 09:25
#1
Right to Choose in South Dakota
Wed, 2008-09-17 09:25
#2
I rec'd this from Kathryn Palmateer of Arts4Choice:
quote:
Hey Everyone!The ACLU of Minnesota is heading to South Dakota to fight the potential
abortion ban, and we need your help!South Dakota is the scene of a major showdown over reproductive freedom.
This Election Day, South Dakotans will be asked to vote on a ban on
virtually all abortions. It's political interference in a woman's most
personal, private medical decisions.Your neighbors in South Dakota need your help. Join us in Sioux Falls next
month to help local activists reject South Dakota's Abortion Ban. We will
talk directly to voters and help the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy
Families defeat this dangerous ban.*When*: October 3–5. The bus would depart at Noon on Friday and return by
9:00 p.m. on Sunday.
*Where*: Bus leaves from St. Paul and goes to Sioux Falls, SD.
*What*: Talking to voters directly*Details*: Transportation and most meals will be provided. If you are a
student lodging is free, if you are not a student but could not afford to
pay for a hotel there are scholarships available.Please help spread the word – I've attached a flyer you can circulate. We
need to get this bus filled – this is the first step that the anti-choice
people are using to overturn Roe V. Wade.Women everywhere need us to stand up for them!
Please join me in South Dakota~
Jana Kooren
Public Education Coordinator
ACLU of Minnesota
651.645.4097 x123
[url=http://www.aclu-mn.org]www.aclu-mn.org[/url]
...just in case you are in the neighbourhood (or neighborhood).
Wed, 2008-09-17 15:35
#3
Sven
The actual ballot initiative is found [url=http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/electvoterpdfs/2008/2008r... (you'll damned near need a microscope to read it).
The South Dakota Secretary of State (the state officer who overseas the election process) published a ballot initiative guide, found [url=http://www.sdsos.gov/electionsvoteregistration/electvoterpdfs/2008SouthD... (see last page of pdf file).
As that latter document states:
quote:
[b]Currently a woman may obtain an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Beyond 24 weeks, abortions may be performed only if necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.Measure 11 would prohibit all abortions performed by medical procedures or substances administered to terminate a pregnancy, except for:
■ abortions medically necessary to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system of the woman; and
■ abortions to terminate a pregnancy of less than 20 weeks resulting from rape or incest reported to law enforcement.
When an abortion is performed as a result of reported rape or incest, the woman must consent to biological sampling from herself and the embryo or fetus for DNA testing by law enforcement.
Measure 11 would allow the provision of contraception substances prior to the time pregnancy can be determined by conventional medical testing, or assistance in obtaining abortions in states where the procedure is legal.
If approved, Measure 11 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution. The State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs.
A vote “Yes” will adopt the proposed law.
A vote “No” will reject the proposed law.[/b]
If approved by the voters, this would become the law in South Dakota.
Obviously, this proposed law is highly restrictive. If upheld by the courts, then this law would essentially eviscerate Roe v. Wade, at least in South Dakota (no other states would be directly affected by the South Dakota law — although there would no doubt be some number of other states which would try to pass a similar law). I’m assuming the law would be first challenged in state court (on the grounds that it violates South Dakota’s state constitution) and then, if unsuccessful, in the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is no doubt the most serious challenge to Roe v. Wade.
Fortunately, a similar proposal was rejected by South Dakota voters a few years ago.