Voters Don't Like South Dakota's Abortion Law
Earlier this year the governor of South Dakota signed a new law into effect that made abortion flat-out illegal. When it goes into effect, you just won't be able to get one there. Well, there weren't very many abortions in South Dakota anyway, but ... I guess it made a point.
This week the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported the results of a survey of South Dakotans' opinions after a few months under this law.
Interesting to watch the numbers shift. I think it might be this: it's easy to oppose abortion in the abstract, hard to oppose it when you or your wife or your daughter needs one. People have had a few months to notice what would have happened if this law were in effect.
What do you think? Sounds to me like people don't want abortion to be used as a form of birth control, but if you need one, you should be able to get it. Great Swarmy predicts there might be some disagreement on what "need" is, especially depending on if it's your own family or somebody across town.
I'm afraid that's what I'd say, too. It's like watching that Terry Schiavo mess. Sometimes you have to make extremely hard decisions, life and death decisions, and it's hard enough already without the government telling you what you should do.
But of course, there are all sorts of places where the Constitution gives people the right to kill other people. War and capital punishment spring right to mind.
This week the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported the results of a survey of South Dakotans' opinions after a few months under this law.
Amid the often hostile rhetoric that pierces South Dakota’s closely watched abortion debate, a new survey shows that more residents of the largely conservative state oppose a ban on the pregnancy-ending procedure than support it, though that would change if exceptions for cases involving rape and incest were allowed.
According to the statewide poll, conducted for the Argus Leader and KELO-TV in Sioux Falls, 47 percent of voters polled would vote to reject the ban, compared with 39 percent who would vote to keep it. Another 14 percent were undecided.
Support for the current form of the abortion ban came equally from men and women and matched the statewide 39 percent. The political breakdown showed only 23 percent of Democrats support the proposed law, while 51 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of independents back it. Statewide poll: Without key exceptions, more South Dakotans oppose abortion ban
Interesting to watch the numbers shift. I think it might be this: it's easy to oppose abortion in the abstract, hard to oppose it when you or your wife or your daughter needs one. People have had a few months to notice what would have happened if this law were in effect.
Gov. Mike Rounds earlier this year signed the ban that the 2006 Legislature passed. It would outlaw all abortions except to save the life of a pregnant woman. Opponents circulated a petition and got enough signatures to prevent the law from taking effect until after a November vote.
Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted the survey of 800 registered South Dakota voters between July 24 and July 26. The voters, all of whom said they were likely to vote in the November election, were interviewed by telephone. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The poll indicated the ban would have broader overall support if it included an exception for cases involving rape or incest. Those undecided or against the current form of the abortion ban were asked if they would favor the proposed law if it included those exceptions. Statewide, 59 percent said they would support that form of an abortion restriction.
What do you think? Sounds to me like people don't want abortion to be used as a form of birth control, but if you need one, you should be able to get it. Great Swarmy predicts there might be some disagreement on what "need" is, especially depending on if it's your own family or somebody across town.
But a rape and incest exception wouldn’t change the minds of some, including Lori Holmberg of Mitchell, who opposes the ban.
“I still wouldn’t vote yes on it,” said Holmberg, 45. “I think those are certainly mitigating factors, but the ultimate question in my mind is that I don’t want someone else making that decision for me.”
I'm afraid that's what I'd say, too. It's like watching that Terry Schiavo mess. Sometimes you have to make extremely hard decisions, life and death decisions, and it's hard enough already without the government telling you what you should do.
Gordon Geick of Sioux Falls, who is voting for the ban, said he’s had his mind made up on the issue for some time.
“Primarily, I think it’s murder,” said Geick, 75. “To start with, I don’t think there’s anything in the U.S. Constitution that gives anybody the right to kill another human being.”
But of course, there are all sorts of places where the Constitution gives people the right to kill other people. War and capital punishment spring right to mind.
posted by JimK at 4:51 PM
13 Comments:
exception for cases involving rape or incest. sounds good to me as long as the cops are informed.
Storm Experts Brief President Bush
No Conclusive Link Yet Between Storm Intensity and Climate Change
MIAMI (July 31) - Officials tracking the approach of the peak hurricane season told President Bush on Monday that data linking a series of devastating storms to global warming was inconclusive.
Eleven months after Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on the U.S. Gulf Coast and caused catastrophic flooding in New Orleans, Bush visited the National Hurricane Center in Florida, a state often battered by hurricanes.
Showing Bush the maps and other devices used to predict storms, Max Mayfield, the hurricane center's director, said one question he is asked often is whether the powerful hurricanes of the past few years, like Katrina, Rita and Wilma, were the result of the earth's warming.
A scientist at the center, Christopher Landsea, told Bush there was "not a consensus" linking the two.
Hurricane and climate scientists outside the government have been wrestling with that debate as well. Many environmental groups are upset with Bush for his rejection of the Kyoto agreement to cut greenhouse gases.
Many climate scientists believe carbon dioxide and other gases trap heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse and cause global warming. Skeptics doubt people affect global climate change and say temperature fluctuations have occurred throughout history.
June marked the official start of the hurricane season.
07/31/06 14:51 ET
Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
From the Sioux Falls Argus Leader,
But a rape and incest exception wouldn’t change the minds of some, including Lori Holmberg of Mitchell, who opposes the ban.
“I still wouldn’t vote yes on it,” said Holmberg, 45. “I think those are certainly mitigating factors, but the ultimate question in my mind is that I don’t want someone else making that decision for me.”
That a girl, Lori...you tell them! Some grow older without getter any wiser...pity.
Jim writes,
I'm afraid that's what I'd say, too. It's like watching that Terry Schiavo mess. Sometimes you have to make extremely hard decisions, life and death decisions,
Question:
Should I starve and dehydrate my wife (instead of simply divorcing her and tossing her back to her family...please, no sentimentality about "for better or for worse") or simply do for her what she is not sufficiently conscious enough to do for herself??? Hummmm, well, the god I worship says I can do whatever I feel is right in my heart (and nobody can tell me otherwise), so I choose to starve and dehydrate her, directly hastening her death. Die, darn it, die!
Yeah, that Terri Schiavo just would not die...messy business for sure.
and it's hard enough already without the government telling you what you should do.
Newsflash: government does that ALL the time...get over it. I could use some spare cash to go back to school and I have a child starting college in less than a year...so I would like to sell my spare kidney. But you know what? The government won't let me...how dare they tell me what to do!
Back to the Argus Leader,
Gordon Geick of Sioux Falls, who is voting for the ban, said he’s had his mind made up on the issue for some time.
“Primarily, I think it’s murder,” said Geick, 75.
And in this Geick and other pro-life folk would be mistaken since murder is a legal term and finding.
“To start with, I don’t think there’s anything in the U.S. Constitution that gives anybody the right to kill another human being.”
And in this regard Mr. Geick is correct. Other than the natural right of self defense (commensurate with the level of threat; I can kill someone that is trying to kill me, but I cannnot kill someone that merely slaps and spits in my face), the legal right to take human life is reserved by the State.
Jim writes,
But of course, there are all sorts of places where the Constitution gives people the right to kill other people. War and capital punishment spring right to mind.
Jim, you have a right to your opinion, but in this case you are factually incorrect.
The two examples you give are not people killing people as much as they are the State authorizing an individual to use deadly force. In the case of war, the State authorizes a soldier to use deadly force under rules of engagement that are specified in advance. If a soldier uses deadly force outside of those rules they are subject to criminal prosecution in a military court.
With regards to capital punishment, the State must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person accused of murder did indeed commit the crime, but they must prove that the only punishment that will fit (read: justice, since justice is where the punishment fits, or rather is commensurate with the crime) is death. Due Process of the Laws must be strictly followed before the State can order the execution of anyone accused of murder. And then once that requirement has been fulfilled, the State...not the kin of the victim...puts the person convicted of murder to death. There is an elaborate procedure that is followed with many "t's" to cross, and many "i's" to dot before the State permits human life to be taken.
Abortion, on the other hand, is simply the unlimited (well, at least under Roe v. Wade & Doe v. Bolton) public license for the use of private lethal force. In no other area of law in the United States is this exception allowed to the best of my knowledge. Really quite unprecedented...
Orin, you would not accept these arguments if someone else made them: they are very weak. Sometimes it's legal to kill people. Turns out it's not black and white, either in abortion, or when somebody's breaking into your house, or when someone lives in a country whose leaders you don't trust, or when someone has done something that society considers rephrehensible, or when someone is suffering from a horrible disease, or ...
JimK
Jim replies, evasively,
Orin, you would not accept these arguments if someone else made them: they are very weak.
Deal with the argument I have put forward...how *exactly* is it weak, and why would I not accept this same argument if someone else made it???
Once again...sigh, Jim writes,
But of course, there are all sorts of places where the Constitution gives people the right to kill other people. War and capital punishment spring right to mind.
Since you have cited a specific LEGAL document, and made an assertion based on that document, I am sure you can cite where the Constitution gives people the right to kill other people. Sorry Jim, you cannot use War or Capital Punishment since they are State sanctioned violence.
WHERE does it say gives people the right to kill other people???
Orin, would you agree that rights not specifically denied are granted? Like, the Constitution doesn't give you the right to brush your teeth in the morning, but (I assume) you claim it anyway. By allowing for war, by defining execution as something other than cruel and unusual punishment, by guaranteeing the right to bear arms, by permitting people to defend themselves and their homes, and as interpreted by the courts for more than two hundred years, the Constitution grants these rights.
JimK
abortion is just a nother right to kill a human. 45,000,000. woman cannot be wrong.
said Holmberg, 45. some one should tell Homberg that she is not going to make that choice. her time is over.
Jim writes,
Orin, would you agree that rights not specifically denied are granted?
Huh? Oh, you mean the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, why of course...
Like, the Constitution doesn't give you the right to brush your teeth in the morning, but (I assume) you claim it anyway.
Wow...brushing my teeth as an exercise of a constitutitonal right? Don't be silly...
By allowing for war, by defining execution as something other than cruel and unusual punishment, by guaranteeing the right to bear arms, by permitting people to defend themselves and their homes, and as interpreted by the courts for more than two hundred years, the Constitution grants these rights.
Take for example the right to bear arms...I could, if I had a gun (alas, I like the company of books more than guns), shoot an intruder. Still, such a shooting would be reported by the police to the local district attorney for review. Then there would be a determination by a representative of the state if I used lawful means to defend my person and property. The Constitution does not give me the right to take the life of another absent permission from the state.
Again (one more time), Jim writes,
But of course, there are all sorts of places where the Constitution gives people the right to kill other people. War and capital punishment spring right to mind.
I have shown you, and more importantly others that may be silent note taking, that this is not the case. The two examples you cite, war and capital punishment, are state-sanctioned violence, that is to say, people given a license from the state to take the life of another. This is legal expression of basic Social Contract Theory...
To say that this is an example of the "Constitution gives people the right to kill other people" is reductionistic.
Some religions teach illness is brought by God. Medical treatment violates tenets of these religions so many believers choose to forgo treatments from doctors and opt for church-sanctioned treatments instead. In the vast majority of States, there are laws that provide an exemption, a religious exemption that allows parents who are believers of such religious tenets to deny their minor children medical care based on the parents' religion. In other words, born-living-breathing children are sacrificed so that their parents may worship as they choose. These State laws exist even though the US Supreme Court has found, ""The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death… Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they can make that choice for themselves." Prince v. Massachusetts, U.S. Supreme Court, (1944) "
From http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_1.html
"There are at least 20 different sects and religious groups in the U.S. whose teachings deny the use of medical care. These groups include: Faith Assembly, Christian Science, The Believer's Fellowship, Faith Tabernacle, Church of the First Born, Church of God of the Union Assembly, Church of God Chapel, Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God, Jesus through John and Judy, Christ Miracle Healing Center, NE Kingdom Community Church, Christ Assembly, The Source, True Followers of Christ, "No Name" Fellowship, End Time Ministries, Faith Cathedral Fellowship, Living Word Assembly of God, Traveling Ministries Everyday Church.
Christian Science is the largest and most prominent of these groupings. Church membership is estimated at 100,000 - 200,000 persons. The church estimates it has 1,800 churches and societies active in all parts of the United States. Since the 1970's there have been at least 18 deaths of Christian Science children; these deaths occurred when the parents denied their children medical care in favor of purely "spiritual healing." Of these deaths: three were from juvenile onset diabetes, an illness which can be controlled by insulin but which is otherwise invariably fatal; four from bacterial meningitis, a deadly illness which, with proper administration of antibiotics, is 90 percent curable; one from a ruptured appendix; one from pneumonia, and one from diphtheria (due to lack of vaccination).
Forty-four states have had religious exemption laws in force since the mid-1970's. (In 1990 South Dakota became the first state to repeal its religious exemptions from health care requirements for sick children.) Furthermore, the above deaths are only those that have come to public attention. Certainly there are other known and unknown cases of death, injury, prolonged suffering, and permanent disability of children whose parents have refused effective medical treatment."
Here are some specific cases of parents who chose to believe that their faith alone would heal their children:
"Cases of Childhood Deaths Due to Parental Religious Objection to Necessary Medical Care
Christian Science Children
The following case summaries of children who died due to their parents' choice to adhere strictly to their religious beliefs against medical care is taken, with permission, directly from material copyrighted by CHILD, Inc.
Seth Ian Glaser, 17 months, died March 28, 1984, in Culver City, California of h-flu meningitis (bacterial meningitis). The parents used only a Christian Science "practitioner" and obtained no medical care for Seth. The parents said that on March 27th, Seth seemed ill and very tired, so they requested absent "treatment" from a church practitioner. At various points Seth seemed to improve, but then relapsed. Symptoms on the 27th were fever, coughing, and rapid breathing and heart rate. The next morning the baby's body turned blue and he vomited up food. At 11 a.m. the parents decided that Seth's condition was serious and that they should take him to the "healer." However, they had to wait for a 1 p.m. appointment. En route Seth went into convulsions that lasted for 90-second periods. His arms and legs became rigid. Even at this point, Seth's parents testified that they did not seriously consider taking Seth to an emergency room. Alarmed at the severity of Seth's illness, the Christian Science practitioner called the church legal advisor who told her that they had the legal right to withhold medical care. At 2:45 p.m. Seth stopped breathing. At this point another practitioner who reputedly had succeeded in resurrecting the dead was contacted. Not until 11 P.m. that night was Seth's body allowed to be taken by mortuary personnel. Seth's mother was charged with manslaughter and child endangerment; however, in a trial conducted without a jury, the Court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Natalie Rippberger, eight months, died December 9, 1984 in Santa Rosa, California, of h-flu meningitis. The parents, Mark and Susan Rippberger, had retained a Christian Science practitioner for spiritual "treatment" but would not get essential medical care for their daughter. The infection began approximately two weeks before Natalie's death. Details of the course of Natalie's illness were provided by the Christian Science "nurse," who before her conversion to Christian Science was a licensed medical nurse. (After Natalie's death the nurse left Christian Science and returned to studies in medical nursing.) On December 4th, Natalie was going through periods in which her eyes were rolling and jerking (the disease organism attacks tissue controlling eye muscles) and her legs became rigid. On the 6th, Natalie was having very heavy convulsions. She was very rigid and her eyes were rolling back in her head. She also was very hot to the touch on the 7th, and the heavy convulsions continued. The only care provided to Natalie by the nurse involved Christian Science nursing "care": bathing, changing Natalie's sheets, bible reading, and prayer. Not once was a doctor called, although medical care has a 92 percent success rate in treating the disease. In the spring of 1984, six months before Natalie's death, two sets of Christian Science parents were already under indictment in California for the death of their children because of their refusal to obtain medical care for them. Both children died of h-flu meningitis. In December, the Rippbergers called California Christian Science Church officials for advice about their desperately ill child. It is inconceivable the Church official spoken to by the Rippbergers did not know of the two indictments. According to Rippbergers' testimony, the official must have told them that they could legally withhold medical treatment from Natalie. Nevertheless, Natalie's parents, Mark and Susan Rippberger, were charged with felony child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter. Both were convicted of felony child endangerment.
Shauntay Walker, age four, died March 8, 1984, in Sacramento, California, of h-flu meningitis. Shauntay was home sick from her pre-school for 17 days. She received no medical care, only Christian Science "care." Shauntay's cousin, Danyelle, saw her 6 days before her death. Danyelle reported that Shauntay seemed unable to move her arms and legs and that her body was stiff. Shauntay's aunt, Claudia, reported that on March 8th, Shauntay was comatose and had lost a lot of weight. She told Shauntay's mother, Laurie, to take Shauntay to the doctor, but Laurie refused. Claudia then told Laurie she would notify the authorities about Shauntay's condition. Laurie responded to her sister's threat by moving her children to the home of another Christian Scientist. Shauntay died there a few hours later. A Christian Science practitioner was retained by Laurie Walker for her daughter on February 21st-over two weeks before her death. She visited Shauntay only twice during her deadly illness. The practitioner denied seeing the symptom of Shauntay's stiff neck (an immediate sign of possible meningitis) and lack of responsiveness pointed out to her by Laurie. Laurie Walker was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and on June 21, 1990, over six years after her daughter's death, she pled guilty to that charge in a negotiated plea which left her no room to appeal. Laurie was sentenced to 600 hours of community service, and was instructed by the Court to provide medical care for her remaining daughter until the daughter's eighteenth birthday. Ms. Walker is currently appealing the decision.
Amy Hermanson, age seven, died September 30, 1986, in Sarasota, Florida, of untreated juvenile onset diabetes. Her parents refused to provide her with necessary medical care. Her illness began in late August of 1986. The course of her illness is documented in the testimony from the trial of her parents for felony child abuse and third degree murder. In August, Amy became thinner, her bones started to protrude through her skin, she developed dark circles under her eyes and her skin developed a bluish tinge. At school she often could not keep awake and would put her head on her desk and fall asleep. Amy's aunt reported that in the 2 weeks before her death Amy had lost 10 pounds, that her eyes were sunken and were functioning separately and that she could barely walk and often had to be carried. On Friday, August 26th, four days before her death, Amy's appearance was skeletal, according to a teacher. Amy told the teacher that she had been vomiting a lot and had been unable to sleep for a few nights. At the end, Amy had lapsed into a coma; she was lying on a bed without sheets; the sheets were found soaking nearby in several buckets with black vomit on them. A Christian Science "practitioner" had been retained to "treat" Amy, with prayer, on August 22nd. Following Amy's death, Chris Hermanson, Amy's mother, stated that Amy had been healed by Christian Science the morning of her death, but that Amy had make her own decision to pass on. Mrs. Hermanson had constantly claimed during Amy's illness that Amy was having an emotional problem deciphering her identity. She also states that Amy had become sick because of negative vibrations received from outside the home. Amy's parents were charged with felony child abuse and third degree murder. Both were convicte on the charge of third degree murder.
Ian Lundman, age 11, died May 9, 1989, in Minneapolis, Minnesota of medically untreated juvenile onset diabetes. His mother and stepfather, as Christian Scientists, had the boy treated by a church practitioner instead of a medical doctor. Ian died in a diabetic coma. On October 9th, 1989, the parents and the Christian Science practitioner attending Ian were indicted for manslaughter by a grand jury. However, in April, 1990, a trial court judge dismissed all of the manslaughter charges, citing a Minnesota religious exemption statute. A Minnesota court of appeals upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the charges and in September, 1990, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled 4-2 to uphold the dismissal of the charges. All three courts based their rulings on the due process fair notice requirements of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They determined that the Minnesota religious exemption law gave the parents the right to assume they could withhold medical care and, therefore, the parents were not given "fair notice" that their behavior was criminal.
Ian Burdick, age 15, died November 10, 1987, in Sherman Oaks, California, of diabetes without medical care. At his death Ian was 5'8" tall and weighed 87 pounds. A Christian Science nurse and practitioner had been retained to treat Ian's disease.
Continues at http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html"
It is a step in the write direction the voters in the states should make the call. Define the especial limits on abortion. It was a bold move by the republicans to make a stand. I wish more issues like this were decided by the voters. They seem to be the ones who have the most common sense.
I hope they chouse a cultrue of life. rather than a cultrue of death.
"It is a step in the write direction the voters in the states should make the call."
A step the religious write sometimes takes and sometimes doesn't.
You're not assuming it was voters in the states who wrote and enacted these religious exemption laws are you? It was Christian Scientist lobbyists working with legislators that got these heinous state laws passed.
I wonder how many states would pass these death by religious exemption laws if they were put to the popular vote. Imagine the joys of running into Christian Scientist protesters imploring you to "Keep your child away from the doctors! Medicine is sinful! Go to church and pray!" at the ER doors as you're taking your kid in for emergency medical care. There may be some people who want to sit by and pray as their child dies of an easily treated disease but most of us do not.
But I'm glad you believe that states like Massachusetts can pass laws that are different from the laws of other states. Should we presume from your stated position on states rights that you thought it was wrong of the US Supreme Court to interfere in Florida's right to enforce it's own state's election laws back in 2000?
US Supreme Court to interfere in Florida's right to enforce it's own state's election laws back in 2000?
If you get your news from Mike Moor or moveon.org than I can understand why you don't know what your talking about.
Post a Comment
<< Home