Thursday, February 01, 2007

South Dakota & Arizona: Abortion Laws

With a few pro-aborts running for the GOP nomination and many of the Democrats proposing a new national health care system, abortion is bound to weigh heavy in the 2008 discussion...

As states continue to write laws meant to challenge or strengthen Roe V. Wade, I can't help but think that they need to challenge the Constitutionality of Roe. As I have said before, regardless of your view on should be a state -by-state matter voted on by the people of that state. Wow, sorta like a Democracy...

South Dakota:
An abortion ban bill introduced Wednesday in the South Dakota state House would allow exceptions for rape and incest, but only if the crimes are reported to authorities with DNA evidence.

People who oppose abortion hope the measure becomes the vehicle for a legal challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

This year's bill would allow rape victims to get abortions if they report the rapes to police within 50 days. Doctors would have to confirm the report with police and would have to take blood from aborted fetuses and give that information to police for DNA testing.

In the case of incest, a doctor would have to get the woman's consent to report the crime along with the identity of the alleged perpetrator before an abortion could be performed. Blood samples from fetuses would have to be provided to police in incest cases, too. Abortions could be done only until the 17th week of pregnancy in cases of incest and rape." (source)

"A state court of appeals unanimously ruled that Maricopa County must take pregnant inmates for abortions if they request one. County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had previously instituted a policy prohibiting the taking of prisoners for abortions because taxpayer funds would be involved in the transportation and staff time needed.
Arpaio had said the abortions would violate state laws against public funding of abortions but the appeals court ruled unanimously against his policy.

The ruling said Arpaio instituted an "exaggerated response" to the abortion funding statute and that his policy violates the privacy rights of the inmates.

The three judge Court of Appeals panel upheld the ruling of a lower district court that sided with the pro-abortion ACLU in its lawsuit seeking to overturn the abortion policy. It said that while taxpayer funds would be used to take the woman for an abortion no funds would be spent on the abortion itself, meaning the jail would still be following state law.

"While we recognize that the county might decline to transport an inmate who presents a particular security or liability concern, an indiscriminate ban on all transportation for nontherapeutic abortions does not allow inmates sufficient alternative means to exercise their right to choose to have an abortion," Irvine wrote." (source)

No comments: