Unborn human beings lose rights in South Dakota

The people of South Dakota have rejected the “Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act.”

The act, if enacted, would have banned abortions for all reasons, including a pregnancy that is the result of rape or incest.

This is what was proposed and rejected:

“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.” – Source


Image from here

Comments spamproofed by Akismet

Trackback disabled until further notice.

5 Responses to “Unborn human beings lose rights in South Dakota”

  1. weezil Says:

    Never again will authoritarian, anti-choice mobsters get this far in imposing their religious will upon the American people. Secular nation, secular laws.

    Bear in mind that the Supreme Court would have struck down this SD law had an initiative to kill it not made it to ballot. In many ways, it would have been better had the law been tested in the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court will however be ruling soon on a Roe v. Wade related case in the test of the ‘partial birth’ abortion procedure.

  2. Marcel White Says:

    ‘Unborn Human Beings Lose Rights in South Dakota’. An excellent title Suki.

    It was a sad election day in America. George W Bush has done the pro-abortion coalition a great service by incompetently invading Iraq, and making the Republicans so unpopular.

    Don’t confuse democratic victories with triumphs of reason. A majority of Australians support the Howard approach to mandatory detention. That does not, as I am sure you agree, render it ‘moral’.

    I think the story to emerge from South Dakota is that 45% people DID WANT abortion completely banned. Civil rights movements have existed and flourished from much smaller bases.

    Watch this space; abortion is only going to become more restricted over time in America, not less, as Weezil thinks, for that is impossible.

  3. Suki Says:

    Do you really believe that this pro-choice position has been informed by Bush and Co., and his unpopularity with regard to the Iraq war?

    Pro-choice is a long established human right and will remain so long after Bush has gone…

    In this case, the proposed Law was a bridge too far for it seems 55% of the people.

  4. marcel white Says:

    I believe Bush’s unpopularity has damaged the pro-life movement in a political sense. I think Bush is a pro-lifer out of convenience rather than conviction. My personal belief is that he is not committed to the issue at all.

    I disagree with you that ‘pro-choice’ is a long established human right. Nicaragua recently passed a ban on all abortions. It was supported by Ortega and the Marxist leaning Sandinistas (readily associated with their left-leaning sympathisers in the West who champion their concern for the poor).

    I think pro-life is the embedded belief of societies with a Christian worldview. Malta, Portugal, Ireland, El Salvador, Chile and Poland are countires where abortion is, or nearly is, completely banned. I do not identify these countries as those gravely transgressing human rights like a North Korea or Cuba (where abortion is freely practiced and carried out by government health officials).

    The UN and its local affilates very often trangress fundamental ‘reproductive rights’ when they force women to have abortions in China, and coerce strerilisations in Mexico (no sterlisation permission from patient, no delivery in hospital).

    55% of people got it wrong in S Dakota. If Australians were offered the same vote, then much to your satisfaction, and my disappointment, I suspect the vote would be more one-sided. Not because Australians have a better grasp of human rights, but in their ignorance of God have a greater tolerance for human wrongs. : )

    BTW I just got engaged. I hope everything is well with you and your family Suki.

  5. Suki Says:

    Banning abortion for all reasons including a pregnancy which is the result of rape and/or incest will always be a bridge too far!

    Women must have the right to reproductive choice.

Leave a Reply