Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

South Dakota Abortion Ban in Dead Heat

By Emily Douglas, RH Reality Check. Posted October 31, 2008.


If the ban passes, it will present a challenge to Roe at the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In 2006, South Dakotans voted 56 to 44 percent against a law passed by the state legislature which would have outlawed all abortion in the state.  But polling done by a South Dakota newspaper after the ban was defeated found that an abortion ban with exceptions would likely pass in the state.  "They said we'd gone too far, that we had to have exceptions for rape and incest," said Leslee Unruh, of Yes for Life, the group pushing the ban.  So, when anti-choice activists regrouped for another round, they wrote a different law.  Now, in 2008, we have Initiated Measure 11, which would outlaw most abortions, with narrow exceptions for reported rape, incest, and "serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system of the pregnant woman."

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the group opposing the ban, says these are merely "so-called" exceptions.  Why?  On the health exception, "'substantial and irreversible harm' is hardly a black-and-white issue," Dr. Suzanne Poppema has written for RH Reality Check. "Imagine a woman, recently diagnosed with cancer, who cannot begin chemotherapy while she is pregnant. Would she be forced to continue her pregnancy to term regardless of the risks? Who decides? If medical experts cannot agree on the precise risk to a woman's health, they may opt not to act at all rather than risk criminal penalties," Dr. Poppema writes.  Indeed, a leaked memo from a South Dakota hospital, Stanford Health, told physicians -- who, at this facility, only provide medically necessary abortions -- that the ban would nonetheless have significant impacts on their medical practice. Dr. Marvin Buehner, a Rapid City doctor specializing in high-risk pregancies, told the Washington Post, "If there's a risk of a Class 4 felony if I don't meet the ambiguous standard of 'serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system,' there's no way I would consider doing an abortion for health reasons."

The rape and incest exceptions are narrower than they might at first sound, too.  Before a doctor could perform an abortion after a rape or incest, the woman must consent to DNA sampling from herself and her fetus for forensic analysis.  The doctor must secure DNA samples and arrange for their transfer to law enforcement.

Tiffany Campbell, a spokeswoman for South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, also says her own son's life would have been lost under the ban. In utero, Campbell's twins suffered from "twin-to-twin transmission" syndrome, in which twins unequally share blood circulation.  Had one twin not been terminated, both would have likely died.  Termination to save a sibling's life wouldn't be permissible under the ban.

But for some anti-choice organizations, the ban doesn't go far enough. The American Life League has joined South Dakota Right to Life in opposing the measure, on the grounds that it permits some abortions.  Dr. Allen Unruh, also of Vote Yes for Life, told NPR, "Ideally, I'd like to save every child possible, but we don't live in that type of world right now. So to me, it's kind of like if the Titanic is sinking, would you say, well, let's not lower the lifeboats because we can't save them all? Let's save every person we can."

But the inadequate exceptions aren't the only reasons South Dakotans oppose the ban, says ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project State Advocacy Director Sondra Goldschein.  Rather, Goldschein says, "There is not a lot of focus on whether there are exceptions or whether there aren't. This is a place where they do not want the government."

If the ban passes, the law will be fought in court and will present a challenge to Roe at the Supreme Court.

The ban is currently in a dead heat. Forty-four percent of 800 registered voters surveyed said they would vote in favor of Initiated Measure 11, and an equal number said they would vote against. Twelve percent remain undecided.  Of those who planned to vote for the measure, 56 percent said the exceptions weren't a factor, but 37 percent said they were.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: supreme court, south dakota, roe v. wade, abortion ban, measure 11

Emily Douglas is the Assistant Editor at RH Reality Check.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The actual purpose is women's punishment for being sexual!
Posted by: luzmejor on Nov 1, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know that.

All this hysterical talk about "saving" children is so much self-congratulatory fluff.
In fact, the truly serious proponents of abortion are also dead set against every form of contraception except abstinence. Children who are raped in their own homes often are pregnant by the time they are 8 or 9 years old. They, in their misery, also do not get any mercy at all from anti sexuality and anti privacy neurotics!
There is nothing quite so bizarre as intentionally treating pregnant children in a large Pediatric Hospital in order to save a fetus.

Here is a possible basic reason for their show of hysterical reasoning:
Fundamentalists are seriously trying to restart their 1940-1960 glory days of "free" babies for sale. That's the way they prove they are "virtuous" people. They obviously have no notion of what is actual Christian behavior and they care nothing for ethics or science. Their world is one driven by ignorance and anger.

Just sign me an elderly and very experienced nurse!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thinking Taliban Posted by: joe33w
» RE: thinking Taliban Posted by: luzmejor
Protection for fetuses, but not babies.
Posted by: anok on Nov 1, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to know just how many of the people voting to ban abortion in this state will step up and start adopting unwanted children.

Will they provide extra funding to child protection services for the increase of cases this department will face?

Will they start donating to women who can't afford to pay for prenatal care and delivery fees at the hospital because thy can't get insurance?

Will they console the grieving family members who lose a wife and mother because she died during a forced childbirth?

This is my message to all the "pro-lifers" out there who are more concerned with saving fetuses than they are about improving the lives of the children who are already alive - abortions aren't the problem, unwanted pregnancies are the problem. Prevent unwanted pregnancies, and you will prevent abortions.

So that means that they will have to get off their asses, stop preaching abstinence only, work to get better health care, better social support for women in abusive marriages or bad situations and get going on HELPING women, instead of demonizing them. So it's either that, or they need to line themselves up, and put their names down on the lists for adoption, foster parenting, and volunteering for child services.

If they're really pro-life, they have to be pro-life for the kids who will be born into lives of hell because of their choice to legislate their religious beliefs and force everyone else into their warped sense of morality and "justice".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In case vasumurti shows up!
Posted by: morticia on Nov 1, 2008 8:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey! vasumurti! You still haven't answered my question! What percentage of women who had illegal abortions back in the pre-Roe days do you suppose would be in favor of recriminalization?

Care to take a stab?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The definitive disaster of the forced birthers is:
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 2, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Dr Unruh stated so clearly,

"So to me, it's kind of like if the Titanic is sinking, would you say, well, let's not lower the lifeboats because we can't save them all?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can of worms
Posted by: torbis5661 on Nov 2, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If roe vs wade gets over turned,and becomes illeagal. Then it becomes murder,and murder has no statal of limtaions.
Any woman who ever has had an abortion,any Doctor who ever has preformed an abortion,will be up on murder charges.
As well as those who drove them to get an abortions.(Spouses/boyfrinds/taxi cab drivers?)
After 36 yrs thats alot of people!!
Where will they put them all?
How many will be given parole or be on death row?
Prisons can't hold them all,so are they going to intermit camps?
The militry who have to be called in to help the police to round up these "crimals".
Yes ,indeed a big can of worms!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stormy7
Posted by: STORMY78 on Nov 2, 2008 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF YOU ARE A MAN AGAINST A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO A SAFE ABORTION, SHUT THE FUCK UP! YOUR PENIS ISN'T A UTERUS AND YOU CAN'T GIVE BIRTH SO YOU OPINION MEANS SQUAT.
IF YOU ARE A WOMAN AGAINST ABORTION..DON'T HAVE ONE!
MY BODY. MY LIFE AND THE LIVES OF ALL WOMEN TRUMP THE LIFE OF THAT FETUS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: stormy7 Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: stormy7 Posted by: laoma
The courts have already ruled in favor of an individuals right to choose...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Nov 2, 2008 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... so why should people be allowed to undermine a standing legal decision!

in normal societies this would/could be considered treason.

the right of an individual to choose to do to himself what he and another professional decide is best for him/her has no place on a political ballet ever!
It should be left for the judiciary to decide and in this case they have decided!

Talk about poor/bad losers... its all or nothing with these people.

We need the judiciary to enforce and empower standing law, and not let the politicians with their grafters of greed corruption and instability get away with politicizing an issue over votes... its leading to instability, but maybe that's the whole point

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE WEALTHY HAVE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM. FORTY YEARS AGO
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Nov 2, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember setting up flights to Sweden and Japan. It was that or the coat hanger. It might have been more than 40.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SANCTITIY OF LIFE
Posted by: katie4life on Nov 4, 2008 9:23 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" A PERSON IS A PERSON NO MATTER HOW SMALL" A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING!!!!!!!!!!! JUST BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE DEFENSELESS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN MURDER THEM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IN ANSWER TO A RETARD
Posted by: katie4life on Nov 4, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF PEOPLE HADNT UNDERMINED STANDING LEGAL DESCISIONS BLACKS WOULD NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DRED SCOTT DESCISION. TO MOVE FORWARD AS A SOCIETY EXISTING LAWS MUST BE CHALLENGED AND REMOVED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IN ANSWER TO A RETARD
Posted by: katie4life on Nov 4, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF PEOPLE HADNT UNDERMINED STANDING LEGAL DESCISIONS BLACKS WOULD NOT HAVE RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DRED SCOTT DESCISION. TO MOVE FORWARD AS A SOCIETY EXISTING LAWS MUST BE CHALLENGED AND REMOVED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]