• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

S.D. won't appeal injunction to blunt limits on abortions

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
South Dakota won't appeal an injunction that stops a restrictive abortion law from taking effect, Attorney General Marty Jackley said Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier granted a request from Planned Parenthood to block the implementation of House Bill 1217 on June 30.

Although I am in favor of a woman's choice, this law was reasonable. All it asked for was for a woman seeking an abortion to wait 3 days, during which time she seek counseling. If, after that, she still wanted the abortion, she could get it. Considering that getting an abortion is a huge decision, I feel that this law was reasonable.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Although I am in favor of a woman's choice, this law was reasonable. All it asked for was for a woman seeking an abortion to wait 3 days, during which time she seek counseling. If, after that, she still wanted the abortion, she could get it. Considering that getting an abortion is a huge decision, I feel that this law was reasonable.

Discussion?

Article is here.

I think it's part of a way to circumvent Roe v. Wade. By placing as many barriers as possible and lowering the maximum time-since-conception, the goal is to shrink the window between when pregnancy is detectable and when abortion becomes illegal.
 
I will continue to say that to reduce abortions to a reasonable number (which to me would be almost ZERO, but hat's never going to happen) we need better education and affordable means of prevention to all.

This had gotten out of control in the last 30 years and needs to stop.

Reasonable people should be able to see the truth of the this.

Abortion as birth control has got to stop because it is unnecessary in this century.
 
I don't believe the law was reasonable. There are very few places in this country where a woman can get an abortion. In a sparsely populated state like South Dakota, it's reasonable to presume that the woman will have to incurr travel expenses even to reach an abortion clinic. Once she is there, she must then pay for a hotel room for three days, find a "counselor" who will see her within that 3-day limit, then pay to have the counseling. This law makes getting an abortion prohibitively expensive, throwing up roadblocks that all too many women would be unable to navigate, time-wise and finance-wise. It's a thinly-veiled attempt to circumvent a woman's right to choose, nothing more.
 
Back
Top Bottom