S. Dakota abortion ban in voters' hands
Opponents of South Dakota's abortion ban have succeeded in suspending implementation of the law, leaving it up to a statewide referendum this fall.
The statute, which outlaws abortion unless it's necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, was signed into law in March and was scheduled to take effect July 1. But the secretary of state's office in Pierre, the state capital, announced Monday that petitions containing at least 16,728 signatures had been certified--enough to refer the ban to voters on Nov. 7.
Although South Dakotans are staunchly conservative, the outcome of the referendum is not preordained. Some voters who consider themselves "pro-life" are uncomfortable with the fact that the law makes no exception for cases of rape or incest, or to prevent serious injury to the woman. The fact that opponents managed to collect more than 38,000 signatures in a state with fewer than 500,000 registered voters was considered an indication of that discomfort.
At the same time, abortion-rights activists said many voters don't really know what the law says and will need to be educated before Election Day.
Evelyn Griesse of South Dakota Access for Every Woman, which helps fund abortions for women without means, was not involved in the petition drive but said she planned to get on board now "to help get the information out."
"A lot of people don't pay attention to anything that goes on in the Legislature and aren't aware of what this bill actually says," she said. "We'll need to know the exact wording [of the ballot measure] so we can tell people `vote yes' or `vote no.'"
"It's no slam dunk," said Jan Nicolay, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the effort to refer the ban to a statewide vote. "We've got a lot of work ahead of us."
On the other side, Leslee Unruh, who runs a pregnancy crisis center that counsels women against abortion, said supporters of the law are totally energized.
"It's probably the loudest cry we've heard," said Unruh. "It's because there are so many women who have been harmed by abortion--myself being one of them--who have come together."
On Saturday, Louisiana became the second state to enact a near-total abortion ban this year. But the Louisiana statute will not take effect until the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.
The South Dakota law, which would have gone into effect despite the existence of Roe, was intended as a direct legal challenge. Its backers are hoping to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its stand on abortion.
Mark this one down on your calendars, for I am going to make a prediction:
On November 7, this measure will be approved by the voters, and not by a small margin.
Within 24-48 hours, the pro-abortion crowd will give the voters the finger by challenging it in court. And an activist judge will comply by declaring it "unconstitutional."
Come on, South Dakota and--
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606200182jun20,1,7491754.story?track=rss
The statute, which outlaws abortion unless it's necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, was signed into law in March and was scheduled to take effect July 1. But the secretary of state's office in Pierre, the state capital, announced Monday that petitions containing at least 16,728 signatures had been certified--enough to refer the ban to voters on Nov. 7.
Although South Dakotans are staunchly conservative, the outcome of the referendum is not preordained. Some voters who consider themselves "pro-life" are uncomfortable with the fact that the law makes no exception for cases of rape or incest, or to prevent serious injury to the woman. The fact that opponents managed to collect more than 38,000 signatures in a state with fewer than 500,000 registered voters was considered an indication of that discomfort.
At the same time, abortion-rights activists said many voters don't really know what the law says and will need to be educated before Election Day.
Evelyn Griesse of South Dakota Access for Every Woman, which helps fund abortions for women without means, was not involved in the petition drive but said she planned to get on board now "to help get the information out."
"A lot of people don't pay attention to anything that goes on in the Legislature and aren't aware of what this bill actually says," she said. "We'll need to know the exact wording [of the ballot measure] so we can tell people `vote yes' or `vote no.'"
"It's no slam dunk," said Jan Nicolay, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the effort to refer the ban to a statewide vote. "We've got a lot of work ahead of us."
On the other side, Leslee Unruh, who runs a pregnancy crisis center that counsels women against abortion, said supporters of the law are totally energized.
"It's probably the loudest cry we've heard," said Unruh. "It's because there are so many women who have been harmed by abortion--myself being one of them--who have come together."
On Saturday, Louisiana became the second state to enact a near-total abortion ban this year. But the Louisiana statute will not take effect until the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.
The South Dakota law, which would have gone into effect despite the existence of Roe, was intended as a direct legal challenge. Its backers are hoping to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its stand on abortion.
Mark this one down on your calendars, for I am going to make a prediction:
On November 7, this measure will be approved by the voters, and not by a small margin.
Within 24-48 hours, the pro-abortion crowd will give the voters the finger by challenging it in court. And an activist judge will comply by declaring it "unconstitutional."
Come on, South Dakota and--
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606200182jun20,1,7491754.story?track=rss