![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
WASHINGTON: The South Dakota Senate has approved the most far-reaching ban on abortion in the US, setting the stage for legal challenges that the bill's supporters hope lead to an overturning of abortion law.
The bill, passed by a 23-12 vote, makes it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion, except to save a woman's life. It must still be signed by the Governor, Mike Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion.
The law was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade, which in 1973 recognised a woman's right to have an abortion. The court includes two new justices appointed by the US President, George Bush, who also opposes abortion. "The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not too distant future," said Roger Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill.
Abortion opponents defeated all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman.
The Washington Post
The bill, passed by a 23-12 vote, makes it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion, except to save a woman's life. It must still be signed by the Governor, Mike Rounds, a Republican who opposes abortion.
The law was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade, which in 1973 recognised a woman's right to have an abortion. The court includes two new justices appointed by the US President, George Bush, who also opposes abortion. "The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not too distant future," said Roger Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill.
Abortion opponents defeated all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman.
The Washington Post
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 02:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 02:37 pm (UTC)Women will die or suffer injury, unwanted kids will be neglected or abused, women/girls who have been victims of rape or incest will harm or kill themselves, families will not be able to afford to feed and clothe their children...I understand that S Sakota already has some of the poorest areas in the US.
So so stupid and short sighted. What is it with people who don't understand the complexities of the real world?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 03:02 pm (UTC)Most brilliant fecking thing I've read in years. (But the whole recap of Serenity is gorram brilliant. You should go read. I need to watch the movie another six times now.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-24 01:39 am (UTC)And yeah, this will just encourage him.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-24 08:39 am (UTC)and yeah. canadian women are going to have to unite.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 06:42 pm (UTC)and i'm writing my term paper on either roe or webster v. reproductive health and it's just scary how pertinent the cases are.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 03:55 am (UTC)I just don't understand how people can be so naive and ignorant.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 07:18 pm (UTC)Actually, this might work against them: The more ill considered and inhumane the bill, the more likely that some sanity might be shown somewhere down the line, and this will get killed.
*remains hopeful*
However, if it makes to the high court women may very well be screwed for a long time to come. And probably not just American women - Don't expect the fundie nut cases to stay at home, once they get what they want.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 03:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 10:56 pm (UTC)I would totally agree if I believed for a second that the people who push these kinds of agendas are doing it all to "save teh bebeez omg!". I mean, if they were actually doing anything to create access to birth control, or effective sex ed programs, or adoption resources, or cheap/free pre and postnatal care for anyone but rich, white people then I might believe they cared.
When their solution to abortion is this kind of thing, it's never ever about the children. They loose all interest in its welfare the moment it's born. It's about getting control of women (and assuring they're properly punished for having sex).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-23 09:25 pm (UTC)http://fineart.elib.com/Alphabetical/Kienholz_Ed/illegal_operation.jpg
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 03:50 am (UTC)That's what they're trying to force us back to. When are they going to live in the real world?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-24 05:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 03:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-24 07:58 am (UTC)*sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 03:49 am (UTC)And we need to reform our laws here to legalise abortion. Apparently the ACT has really great laws which allows women to have abortions without having to "prove" that it will have a detrimental effect on their life. We shouldn't have to have doctors approve our decision. I know that in practice it probably isn't that difficult to get doctors to sign off on it, but we shouldn't have to.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-25 07:52 am (UTC)