abortion news

"Lawmakers are preparing to vote on a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in South Dakota, a measure that could become the most sweeping ban approved by any state in more than a decade, those on both sides of the abortion debate say.... Since 2005, bans similar to the bill have been proposed in at least five states, but those on both sides of the abortion debate say this effort has the strongest chance of succeeding.... The proposed legislation, which states that "life begins at the time of conception," would prohibit abortion except in cases where the pregnant woman's life was at risk."

Also.

"The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide whether a 2003 federal ban on the procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortion is constitutional, setting the stage for its most significant ruling on abortion rights in almost 15 years. Without comment or recorded dissent, the court granted the Bush administration's request to review a lower court's ruling striking down the law, which passed Congress overwhelmingly but has yet to be enforced."


The WP article (2nd one) has a great historical summary of the "partial birth" abortion voting controversy. It's also worth noting that neither Today's Papers nor The Morning News mentioned the South Dakota vote.


UPDATE (2/23): "After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the [South Dakota] senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life. They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle."

"The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush."

It's clear to me that, if the intent of this law is to provide a significant challenge to Roe v. Wade, it has failed miserably. I can't believe the Supreme Court would let stand an abortion law that didn't include exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother. So, in effect, the South Dakota anti-abortion zealots have shot themselves in the foot. Regardless, while the court battles drag on and on, women in South Dakota won't have access to safe abortion, and may not have the resources to travel to states where abortion is legal.

Do not talk to me about abortion today, because I may either explode or resort to violence.