New legislation was announced today that would ban abortion in South Dakota state except in limited instances. The AP Reports that copies of the bill with full details were not available, and legislators refused to reveal specifics. However, Bob Ellis from the Dakota Voice had a preview of the bill last Friday. He writes:
If it comes out essentially unchanged from what it was on Friday, it's a bill I can fully endorse. My only caveat is that last year's bill was my #1 choice, being more consistent from a pro-life and scientific perspective, since all human life is sacred, no matter how it was conceived.
This one is intended to have exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. While traditionally these exceptions have been big enough to drive the space shuttle through, this draft has those exceptions very tightly regulated to prevent misuse and abuse.
The bill is likely to be endorsed by SD voters who view themselves as pro-life but believe certain exceptional circumstances necessitate the killing of the unborn. In particular, it is unfortunate that some unborn babies are given the death sentence for a despicable crime committed by their fathers.
"We know that some in the pro-life movement will be opposed this legislation because of the rape and incest exceptions, but we believe that position is irresponsible," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "A statistical analysis of abortions done in South Dakota indicates that if the current bill passes into law - even with the rape and incest exceptions - numerically it would allow only one abortion every four years. This means that over a four-year period, this legislation would save the lives of almost 3,500 children. To oppose this legislation would have to be considered 'pro-abortion.'"
This quote from Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger is morally reprehensible. Operation Rescue is running full-speed down the path of legal positivism.
Disclaimer: The statements and articles listed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of ProLifeBlogs. Aggregated content created by others is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all those links, too: ProLifeBlogs has no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.
