Hurray!! for South Dakota!! (60 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Feb-11 11:03 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 12)  
 
  802.1  
 
South Dakota House Passes Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Challenge to Roe v. Wade 
ANN ARBOR, MI  After over two hours of emotional debate, the South Dakota House last night overwhelmingly passed House Bill 1191, 54 to 14. The Bill establishes that life begins at conception and would outlaw abortions in the state making the practice a five year felony. The Bill is designed to have the U.S. Supreme Court reconsider its 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which legalized abortions nationwide. 

The Thomas More Law Center worked closely with South Dakota Representative Matt McCaulley, chief sponsor of HB 1191, for the last several months both in the drafting and legal strategy of the bill. 

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated. This is new and unique legislation that has never been considered by the Supreme Court. The Law Center and our Associate Counsel, Harold Cassidy are pleased we could be of assistance to Matt McCaulley and South Dakota in their efforts to protect the unborn. While we cannot predict the future, we do know that this legislation establishes significant facts that the courts will not be able to ignore. 

Representative McCaulley agreed. Abortion is an important moral issue that transcends party lines. Protecting unborn human life is something the vast majority of South Dakota residents support, and Democrats and Republicans joined together and passed a bill that will protect unborn human life in our state. We are ready to fight for the right to life, as opposed to waiting for it. 

In the preamble to HB 1191, the legislature determined that based on the best scientific and medical evidence, life begins at fertilization and that South Dakotas Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings. The Bill also finds that abortions impose significant risks to the health and life of the pregnant mother, including significant risk of suicide, depression and other post traumatic disorders. 

Approval by the House now sends the bill to the Senate where support continues to be strong. Should South Dakotas pro-life governor sign the bill, the new law would directly confront Roe v. Wade. 

The Bill mandates that physicians make every effort to preserve the life of both the mother and her unborn child. However, it is not a violation of the law if the medical treatment provided to the mother results in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child. 

Approval in the full House of Representatives came only days after an emotional and tense hearing in the House State Affairs Committee where members heard testimony from doctors, lawyers and post-abortive women from across the country. With passion and tears, several women recounted their personal grief, severe depression, and thoughts of suicide that came as a result of their abortions. After over four hours of testimony, and strong opposition from Planned Parenthood representatives, committee members passed the bill 11-2, sending it to the House where it was approved on Tuesday. 




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  WendyJM1    Feb-19 7:06 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (2 of 12)  
 
  802.2 in reply to 802.1  
 
Wow - I never heard this anywhere else... great news!!!

in Christ - Wendy

 

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Feb-19 8:27 am  
To:  WendyJM1    (3 of 12)  
 
  802.3 in reply to 802.2  
 
Hi Wendy,

 

I have mentioned this to several people and no one has seen anything on it.

 

This is really getting the deep treatment.

 

Actually it seems to be the new trend as America really is a nation of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and not a Nation of killing the innocent unborn.

 

God Bless you Always,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/19/2004 8:04:41 PM ET by David (DAVIDABROWN) 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  WendyJM1    Feb-19 8:56 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (4 of 12)  
 
  802.4 in reply to 802.3  
 
well - i'll put it up at my forum too !

 

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-10 10:32 am  
To:  WendyJM1    (5 of 12)  
 
  802.5 in reply to 802.4  
 
South Dakota Governor Asks Legislature To Make Style Changes Before Abortion Ban Challenging Roe v. Wade Becomes Law 

The bill as drafted can be found at: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/HB1191S.pdf 

ANN ARBOR, MI - In a press conference today, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds expressed his support for House Bill 1191 that would ban almost all abortions in the state, but asked the legislature to make minor technical changes to the Bill before it becomes law. 

The Governor made clear that the changes he is requesting are only for the purpose of insuring that South Dakota's existing laws restricting abortion are not put in jeopardy if the current legislation is successfully challenged in court. Governor Round's decision to ask for the style changes leaves open the possibility that the House or Senate could choose not to endorse the law. The two legislative bodies will be asked to concur by majority vote on the style changes before he signs the bill into law. 

From the beginning, officials with South Dakota Right to Life and National Right to Life have voiced opposition to the Bill stating this was not the right time to attempt a ban on abortions. 

Richard Thompson, President of the Thomas More Law Center, that aided in the drafting and legal strategy of the legislation responded to their opposition saying, "When is it the wrong time to do what is right? After 31 years and 40 million murdered babies under Roe v. Wade, it is essential that we continue to confront the Court with their immoral and lawless decision that has no basis in the Constitution, history or traditions of our nation." 

"I applaud the South Dakota legislature. House Bill 1191 was designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, protect women, and save unborn children in South Dakota. This bill if signed represents a truly groundbreaking effort to end abortion on the part of the state of South Dakota, and I hope other states will follow," said Thompson. 

South Dakota State Representative Matt McCaulley, the main sponsor of the bill, viewed the Governor's decision positively. "Governor Rounds today agreed with a bi-partisan super-majority of the South Dakota Legislature and moved forward landmark legislation that will protect unborn human life in South Dakota. I am pleased that the Governor has agreed to urge Legislators to support his recommendation that HB1191 become law with the changes he has proposed. South Dakota is doing the right thing - fulfilling its duty to protect all human life." 

The bill as drafted can be found at: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2004/bills/HB1191S.pdf 

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  WendyJM1    Mar-10 11:21 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (6 of 12)  
 
  802.6 in reply to 802.5  
 
Yes - I just updated this too :-))) seems like this would be a good state to live in!

 

 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-10 10:36 pm  
To:  WendyJM1    (7 of 12)  
 
  802.7 in reply to 802.6  
 
The Best!!!

God Bless you,
David



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-16 10:39 am  
To:  ALL   (8 of 12)  
 
  802.8 in reply to 802.1  
 
South Dakota Senate Kills Abortion Ban - Very Sad!!

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 15, 2004

Pierre, SD (LifeNews.com) -- The South Dakota state Senate has declined to approve technical corrections made to an abortion ban bill by Governor Mike Rounds (R). The vote came shortly after the state House approved the ban that some pro-life groups say won't prohibit many abortions. 

After passing through the state legislature, Rounds issued a "style and form" veto. Unlike most other states, South Dakota's constitution allows governors to require the legislature to approve changes to the bill on a majority vote.

Rounds sought to ensure that current pro-life laws will remain on the books if the legislation is declared unconstitutional. The South Dakota House on Monday approved those changes with a 52-16 vote, but the Senate disapproved it by a 18-17 margin.

Though the bill was initially hailed as an attempt to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing abortions, the state Senate earlier added a health exception that some pro-life advocates say gutted the intent of the bill. They worried the exception would allow an abortion practitioner to determine when an abortion is "needed" to protect a woman's health and that all abortions could be labeled as necessary.

State Sen. Jay Duenwald (R) wrote a letter to Rounds and said that "without an objective standard for health [nothing will] prevent this exception from turning into a gigantic loophole." The health exception "creates a subjective standard for what counts as a risk to the health of the mother, focused on the intent of the doctor performing the abortion."

To prove his point, Duenwald cites Colorado late-term abortionist Warren Hearn, who told USA Today in May 1997 that, "I will certify that any pregnancy ... could cause 'grievous injury' to her 'physical health.'"

But other pro-life advocates said the exception is not a problem and the bill should be supported anyway.

Abortion advocates opposed the bill and planned to ask courts to declare it unconstitutional.

Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's director in South Dakota, said the abortion business would have taken the legislation to court as soon as it is finalized.

In 2002, 826 abortions were performed in South Dakota and the Planned Parenthood business in Sioux Falls performed 815 of them.



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Mar-20 9:06 am  
To:  ALL   (9 of 12)  
 
  802.9 in reply to 802.1  
 
Idaho Pro-Life Legislation Providing Accurate Abortion Information Dies

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 19, 2004

Boise, ID (LifeNews.com) -- Thanks in part to a split among pro-life groups in Idaho, pro-life legislation that would have made sure women are given accurate information about abortion's risks and alternatives prior to having an abortion is now dead. 

The legislation came as a response to the state Health Department's lack of enforcement of an old informed consent law that some pro-life groups say isn't much good anyway. The law contains a provision that allows abortion practitioners to determine when they think a woman considering abortion is entitled to the information.

Pro-life groups put forward a new proposal, but the state House Health and Welfare Committee killed it on Thursday afternoon despite the Idaho Senate approving it on a 20-15 vote.

Committee Chairman Bill Sali opposed the legislation and he, along with Republican Reps. Henry Kulczyk and Peter Nielsen, joined the three Democrats on the panel to kill the bill.

According to the Idaho Statesman, Reps. Janice McGeachin of Idaho Falls, Kathie Garrett of Boise, Sharon Block of Twin Falls, and Bob Ring of Caldwell joined Charles Eberle of Post Falls in voting to send the bill to the House floor. 

Catholic Charities of Idaho, Right to Life of Idaho and the Cornerstone Institute all support the legislation, but Idaho Chooses Life, another statewide pro-life group, opposes it. ICL unsuccessfully sued the state in order to get it to enforce the old law.

Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and the Idaho affiliate of the ACLU also opposed the pro-life legislation.

Governor Dirk Kempthorne and Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden both supported the legislation.

Similar laws in other states have proven effective in reducing the number of abortions and helping women make better choices.

Related web sites:
Idaho State Legislature - http://www2.state.id.us/legislat/legislat.html

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Apr-1 1:17 pm  
To:  ALL   (10 of 12)  
 
  802.10 in reply to 802.5  
 
  Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Lifes Efforts to Kill South Dakotas Abortion Ban 

ANN ARBOR, MI  One week after accusing the National Right to Life Committee of betraying the pro-life movement, the Thomas More Law Center has released a seven page report detailing the role of the National Right to Life Committee and is its state affiliate, South Dakota Right to Life, in opposing and ultimately defeating a South Dakota law that would have banned virtually all abortions and challenged Roe v. Wade. 

The Law Center report makes clear that both NRLC national and local officials opposed the legislation from its very beginning because they felt that even after 31 years and 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, the time is not right to confront Roe v. Wade. 

The report issued Wednesday was released in response to a two-page form letter from NRLC defending their opposition to the South Dakota legislation. The Law Center report explains, pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLCs lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLCs claim to represent the interests of the unborn. 

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the release of the report. Of course National Right to Life has a right to its opinions, but they dont have a right to be wrong on the facts. This report has been released in response to NRLCs misstatement of facts in their form letter response. 

The report counters NRLCs claim that the health exception was the reason they opposed the bill. The language they complained of did not exist until after NRLC representatives lobbied legislators to abandon the no exceptions bill. The resulting exception was narrowly crafted, and did not contain the traditional broad health language as defined in Doe v. Bolton. The resulting abortion ban, even with the exception would have outlawed virtually all abortions. 

Accordingly, the report cites statements made by NRLC officials in multiple national news stories, revealing that the NRLC opposed the abortion ban when the legislation did not contain any exceptions, and criticizes the actions of South Dakota state senator Jay Duenwald, a board member of National Right to Life who lobbied against the bill and even voted with pro-abortion Senators against a no exceptions version of the abortion ban. 

The report takes on NRLC and the argument that the time is not right to pass an abortion ban, and that pro-lifers must wait for changes in the Supreme Court. What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait? 

The report continues, Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances, NRLC should demonstrate humility and respect for the efforts of those who differ with their judgment concerning the right time to ban abortion and challenge the Roe v. Wade decision. 

The full report can be found on the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org
 




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    Apr-1 8:47 pm  
To:  ALL   (11 of 12)  
 
  802.11 in reply to 802.1  
 
      
'Pro-Choice' Clergywoman Claims God Often Wills Abortion

By Bill Fancher
April 1, 2004

(www.AgapePress.org) - Many conservatives may be surprised to learn that, in the battle over abortion, the vast majority of religious denominations and their clergy support the pro-abortion side.

At many of the pro-homosexual rights and pro-abortion rights rallies that take place across the United States, a large contingent of clergy who support these rights can often be found. Conservative Christians often find it difficult to understand how members of the Church and especially the clergy can support ideas and lifestyles that are contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

Nevertheless, these members are in the Church, and they have a rationale for their positions. One such clergy member is Dr. Roselyn Smith-Withers, an African-American minister in the Baptist church. She believes that abortion is a decision that can be sanctioned by God. "I believe God speaks to women and enables them to make decisions for themselves," she says.

The Baptist clergy member, who is a clergy counselor for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, considers herself a "Christian pro-choice advocate." She recently testified in a congressional committee hearing and told members of Congress she believes God sometimes directs women to have abortions.

"I believe that when we do not agree or understand the challenges that a woman is facing, we can be absolutely certain that God understands," Smith-Withers says.

The pro-abortion-rights minister contends that her Christian faith does not conflict with her position that women "have the moral authority to make decisions that are healthy, helpful, good, and of God," even if one of those decisions is to end the life of an unborn child.

Smith-Withers recently told Congress that God can enable a woman to choose abortion as her best option, and it is part of her ministry to alert women to this. "I believe that God has called me to a ministry that includes compassion for all of God's children, through all phases of their experience," she says.

 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.
 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
www.BasicChristian.org

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Christ, our Hope (amym38)     Apr-2 9:17 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (12 of 12)  
 
  802.12 in reply to 802.11  
 
This is terrible.   And prooves that people have lost their ability to reason in truth.    Her 'Christian faith' is not borne in Christ, that is evident.   

 

 
 
 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
