South Dakota bans most abortions

South Dakota has now been placed on the map as a state that is not afraid of a big fight.  The Gov has signed into law legislation that would ban almost all abortions.  These guys know there is going to be a fight and these guys are ready and willing to take the heat. 

PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) — Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Complete Story: – South Dakota law bans nearly all abortions.

Error: Unable to create directory wp-content/uploads/2023/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

About waynem

As a Minnesota based photographer and artist I have been greatly influenced by the Upper Midwest. I focus my skills and energies on portraits, landscapes, cityscapes, architectural and fine art work. My best work comes from images first painted in my mind. I mull over a prospective image for weeks or months, seeing it from different angles and perspectives, then finally deciding what to capture. The result is images that deeply touch people's emotions and powerfully evoke memories and dreams. My images are used commercially by companies and organizations ranging from Financial Services firms, mom and pop Ice Cream shops and The Basilica of St Mary to communicate their shared vision and values. Book and magazine publishers have featured my images on their covers. My photographs also grace and enhance the decor of many fine homes.
This entry was posted in Activism, Current Affairs, Misc, Politics, Religion, Science, Wisdom and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to South Dakota bans most abortions

  1. Fish says:

    While I do not agree with Abortion in general, I do think they should have allowed for victims of rape or incest simply because of the horror of the thing in the first place. They’d have had a lot more support and much less controversy. No one wants to see a victim victimised even further by the law.
    If a woman is raped or a victim of incest and an abortion is performed before a certain time…
    i know if my daughter or wife is ever raped I will NOT make them have the baby of such a thing, I would not put them through the trauma of carrying it through.
    But I guess the MEN that make the laws never take into consideration how they’d feel if they were a woman in that situation, I would like to think they’d consider their wives or daughters in their decision making if they can’t do otherwise.
    All they’re really ensuring is that women will go somewhere where it is legal to have it done.
    Here we go again with quacks performing illegal abortions that will kill how many young women?

  2. Wayne M says:

    You said…
    “But I guess the MEN that make the laws never take into consideration
    how they’d feel if they were a woman in that situation, I would like to
    think they’d consider their wives or daughters in their decision making
    if they can’t do otherwise.”
    I hope you know that this is indeed not true. Of course they consider such things. You need to consider that there are bigger things going on than you may be able to see or that you know about. Not all politicians are bad evil guys, some are good and some are women.
    They know this will get tied up in the courts, maybe even for years. But what will happen is that this case will force the Federal courts to deal with the very bad decision of Roe v Wade. This is a State issue and not a federal issue. If the people of SD hate this law, they will remove these politicians from office. That is how a constitutional republic is supposed to work. Then they can make a law that may allow for incest and rape.

  3. SD Ex-Resident says:

    I agree. If you have issues with the law, take it up with the people who voted those politicians into office. Obviously, the majority of the population has some sort of similar leaning towards making this law.

  4. Fish says:

    I simply stated my opinion and I’m entitled as anyone else to it.

  5. Crystal says:

    Well.. I know from reading the articles in the papers that 70-85% of the state population was in favor of allowing an exception for incest and rape victims.
    But it was never taken into consideration, obviously. There’s a very small loop hole with many loop holes and faults of it’s own.
    Unless you’ve been close to someone who’s been raped, or been a victim of incest that’s resulted in a pregnancy, never can you judge.
    This is something for God to decide for us, not politicians with a God complex ruling their own personal opinions and faith and belief upon an entire population.

  6. Crystal says:

    Add in, the psychological ramifications upon those women, knowing they are carrying a baby from rape, from a violent sexual crime, of their father, or uncle, or brother.
    How do you think that would be beneficial to them?
    What happened to women’s rights?

  7. cwv warrior says:

    Hey Crystal, I lost track of you. Glad to “see” you again. This law is not about women’s rights and it is not something the people should decide. It is a God thing. “Thou shalt not kill” Government servants in South Dakota are hopefully seeking God’s mandate. A godly people would not vote them out.
    Too, too many women have suffered as a result of this “right”, in the aftermath of guilt and remorse.
    Rape/incest victims are to be pitied and maybe exceptions will be made but the free-for-all contraceptive of act now, think later CAN’T be an acceptable law in God’s sight.

Comments are closed.