PIERRE, S.D. (AP) - Lawmakers confirmed Friday that a bill banning most abortions in South Dakota will be introduced again in the Legislature, and it will contain exceptions for rape, incest and the health of women.
The measure was in the final drafting stages, and it was expected to be offered early next week. Tuesday is the deadline for individual lawmakers to introduce bills. Complete details of the measure were scheduled to be released Monday.
A measure that would have banned all abortions except those necessary to save women's lives was passed last year, but it was referred to the ballot and voters ultimately rejected it.
The head of Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls said she is disappointed that the South Dakota Legislature will once again consider a bill to ban most abortions in the state.
Kate Looby said Friday it's apparent lawmakers didn't get the message in the last election when voters rejected an abortion ban by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent.
"The voters just spoke on this issue in November, and the message they were sending was, 'We don't want the government involved in this very personal, private family issue,' and apparently some of the legislators just can't seem to stay out of private issues that families are facing and deal with," Looby said.
The additional exceptions for rape, incest and the health of women are what voters want, said state Rep. Mary Glenski, D-Sioux Falls.
Glenski, who will be one of the sponsors of this year's near-ban, doesn't think voters are tired of the issue. She said it makes sense to bring the issue back because most South Dakotans oppose abortion.
"I feel a real responsibility to try and respond to what the voters told us after the election," Glenski said. "Many people said the lack of exceptions was the reason they voted against last year's bill."
The Democrat said she does not think there would be another petition campaign to put the legislation on the ballot because it addresses the main complaints by opponents last year.
"No exceptions for rape and incest, that was their whole program, and this is meeting that concern," Glenski said. "I think people feel we invested a lot of time in this and would like to see the subject taken care of."
Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he has not seen the specifics of the bill and would not comment on whether he would sign it, as he did with last year's measure.
The governor said he favors an incremental approach to limiting abortion, rather than last year's attempt at a near-total ban.
"I've always thought that taking it step-by-step had a lot better chance of being accepted by the courts than one that was a direct frontal attack," Rounds said Friday.
The 2006 legislation was designed as an effort to get the abortion issue back before the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes that it would reverse its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.
South Dakota Right to Life state Director, Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark, said Friday it is a mistake to revive the issue in the state Legislature until there's an anti-abortion swing on the high court.
"I don't have any confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold a ban," he said. "I think it's premature to forge ahead with this at this time."
Greenfield said additional exceptions could gain popular support, but wouldn't matter from a legal standpoint.
"While it may be palatable to the public, I don't see any way it would be palatable to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.
"But don't get me wrong. I don't question the passion and sincerity of the people who are promoting this issue again. Our goal is the same," Greenfield said. "At this time, though, we can only chip away at the peripheral issues. There will be a more appropriate time to forge ahead with a ban."
Greenfield said legislators should instead keep adding abortion restrictions that are more likely to survive a court challenge.
He is a co-sponsor of two abortion-related bills that were introduced Friday.
One of the them, SB172, would require abortion doctors to read a notice to women, telling them it is against the law for anyone to force or pressure them to get abortions.
Women also would have to be told that doctors cannot do abortions unless consent is voluntary.
SB171 would require clinics and hospitals that offer abortions to display prominent signs informing women that it is against the law for anyone to force or coerce them into getting abortions and it is illegal to do abortions unless they are freely requested.
Clinics and hospitals that failed to post the signs could be sued for $1,000 in damages and for attorney's fees.
Rep. Gordon Howie, R-Rapid City, said he will be one of the sponsors on this year's bill to ban most abortions. He said polls have shown that most South Dakotans oppose abortion, and a measure with exceptions stands a better chance of being accepted by voters - if the issue again is forced onto the ballot by a petition campaign.
Comments