Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

New South Dakota Law Aims to Reduce Abortions

March 23rd, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

From the Associated Press, with some emphasis:

“PIERRE, S.D. (AP) β€” South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a law Tuesday requiring women to wait three days after meeting with a doctor to have an abortion, the longest waiting period in the nation.

Abortion rights groups immediately said they plan to file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which also requires women to undergo counseling at pregnancy help centers that discourage abortions.

Daugaard, who gave no interviews after signing the bill, said in a written statement that he has conferred with state attorneys who will defend the law in court and a sponsor who has pledged private money to finance the state’s legal costs.

“I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives,” the Republican governor said the statement. “I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.”

About half the states, including South Dakota, now have 24-hour waiting periods, but the state’s new law is the first of its kind in having a three-day waiting period and requiring women to seek counseling at pregnancy help centers, said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.”

Tags: , , ,

|

11 Responses to “New South Dakota Law Aims to Reduce Abortions”

  1. avatar Louis E. says:

    It is the antithesis of good medical practice to require that patients be lied to about a procedure before undergoing it.ANd yes,the teachings of your church about embryology are largely lies.

  2. avatar CPT Tom says:

    Louis. E

    What lies are those? The embryo is a separate life from the moment of conception. The DNA is different from the mother’s from that moment on. That’s science, not faith, nor a lie. Now, since that is the case it is a separate life then the mother has no right to terminate it. Her choice ended when she decided to have intercourse. That isn’t a lie. Its a belief. Our belief is that the child’s life, and, yours for that matter, is sacred as it is God’s creation. That isn’t a lie, that’s a belief, a truth under natural law. A profound belief that all life matters, even yours, and should, Therefore, be protected and given the chance to live until natural Death with dignity.

    Seems to me the law allows for both sides to be heard, especially when you consider that Planned Parenthood and its ilk have unprecedented and unchallenged access to schools and women’s clinics. Seems to me you’d want this balance if you were really interested in the truth.

  3. avatar Louis E. says:

    “The embryo is a separate life from the moment of conception” is certainly a lie…it grossly oversimplifies the situation and treats enormous differences as irrelevant.The DNA being different from the woman does not distinguish it from the many millions of intestinal flora in her gut…which are more legitimately separate lives because they are capable of completing their life cycles with or without her.The embryo is not a self-sustaining thing…it is alive but not a life.Whether or not it becomes a separate life must be her choice,or her life is devalued.The right to life until natural death is obtained at birth,and by the very fact that our mothers chose to bear us and were not compelled to do so by the State.

  4. avatar Matt says:

    Louis, that’s pure dogmatic phooey

  5. avatar CPT Tom says:

    Louis E.

    Whose over-simplifying and lying now? First no animal embryo is expected to survive on its own. So that argument is just dead on arrival. The difference between the embryo and the intestial fauna is that it shares the same species DNA tat the mother has. It isn’t pig, monkey or viral DNA, it is most certainly Human DNA. Also, the mother’s body doesn’t reject the cells as it would a diseases or intestinal fauna. If anything, if left to the natural order of things, the mothers body will support and allow it to grow, because that is what the mother’s body is designed to do. If a proper implantation in the womb, then the embryo grows to full term. This is the way all mammal life is designed to work by God and biology.

    Its good you bring up choice…its so important to your mindset…Your assumption is that abortion is the woman’s choice. Really? Statistics seem to indicate not necessarily. Seems abortion is the answer more often than not for the man who doesn’t want a child (Statutory Rape, Incest, etc.), or a woman who is given no other prospects, ie. no other choices, or is convinced the pregnancy will ruin her life. Your type seems to not want the woman have any other choices. You seem to want the woman to have only the easy answer. Should ending a life be an easy answer? When did being poor become a death sentence? You say the woman must choose, otherwise her life to devalued. Really? So if a woman is forced into having an abortion, because no other options are given to her, does she really CHOOSE? Isn’t her life more “devalued” by choosing to end a life when she could of given birth and had the baby raised by a family that wants the child and will value that child as well? Your position does not indicate you think that a woman should be given all choices and by people who believe in those choices other than abortion.

    I submit that you are the liar and definitely oversimplifying things. A woman’s so called right to choose is not worth the over 50 million abortions in the USA in the last 40 years. That’s 1/3 of the last generation that wasn’t born. The majority of those not born were minority children. The Nazi’s only managed 6 million people and that was rightly called genocide. Its telling that your side doesn’t have a problem with that…those lives were as important I guess. There are many so called “unwanted” children (our President included) who have gone on to great things in this world. What right does an individual woman have to make the call that there child doesn’t have the right to live, just because it’s not convenient? As I stated earlier, her right to choose ended when she chose to have intercourse. And your straw man of the state forcing the woman to have or not have…please, The state doesn’t have to tell woman they can’t have a baby…the women in the west are all too willing to do so on their own. However, often the state is certainly an accomplice.

    What has this wonderful right to choose brought the West??? Europe is well below replacement (forget about over population) levels…Italy, France and Germany may be so far gone that they may not be able to turn themselves around and will be extinct with a generation. We’re barely holding on here in the USA. What you espouse is nothing short of Species Suicide. Frankly that just strikes me as stupid

  6. avatar Scott W. says:

    Louis E. is a bit behind the times. Most pro-abortionists have stopped arguing against the humanity of the unborn and have opted for, “Yeah, it’s human. Yeah, we are killing a human? So what?”

  7. avatar Louis E. says:

    It’s human,but absolutely not a human.Like your appendix.
    I am just as against forced abortion as I am against forcibly prevented abortion.

  8. avatar Jim says:

    Jim M. here: I believe that Louis E. and people like him will justify abortion in any and all circumstances. It seems to make perfect logical sense that there be some kind of a waiting period with counseling, before deciding something so radical and life changing. May the Lord bless Gov. Daugaard for sticking his neck out to help the woman involved, and to protect innocent human life!

  9. avatar Dr. K says:

    It’s human,but absolutely not a human.Like your appendix.

    If it’s human, it’s human.

    The infant in the womb is absolutely not like an appendix. One is an organ in the mother, while the other is a living being with its own set of organs.

  10. avatar CPT Tom says:

    Louie E.

    That is the best you got? Lame. Well, in the end you don’t want women to even hear the otherside or have time to think about the what she may destroy. It is obvious you have no interest in the truth. Begone you tool of the culture of death! Out poor soul, we will pray for your soul.

  11. avatar Catholic Dad says:

    “The embryo is not a self-sustaining thing….”

    A newborn is not “self-sustaining” (i.e., consider nutrition, comfort, warmth) , nor is an individual temporarily incapacitated due to an injury, or many persons with developmental disabilities….and many elderly folks…So, it would appear that this criterion for defining “life” is not valid….Otherwise, you would would be able to justify…Well, anyway, best wishes to you, Louie E.


-Return to main page-