Friday, August 25, 2006

Frequently Asked Questions on HB 1215 a.k.a. Referred Law 6

I've received a few inquiries concerning Referred Law 6 lately. As such, I will be responding to frequently asked questions under the FAQ's link at www.sdrl.org as time allows. However, I will have limited access to the software I need to update the webpage, so I will also be posting my responses here. Please direct questions to brock@sdrl.org, and look for responses either here or at the direct link, http://sdrl.org/about/FAQ's.doc.

The first question and my response are below.

Q: I am wondering, when would the abortion ban go into effect - now or when Roe v. Wade is some day overturned?

A: When HB 1215 passed, the rallying cry of the pro-abortion side (Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, & the other usual suspects) became “Let the people decide.” There are numerous examples of such rhetoric scattered throughout articles that have been written since Governor Rounds signed HB 1215 into law. One needs look no further than Planned Parenthood’s very own website for a couple examples. Click here to link to an article that highlights such sentiments. In the opening paragraph of this article, which originally ran in the Star Tribune, it says the petitions were being circulated “to let voters decide” this issue. When one woman opted not to sign, the abortion advocate said, “Are you afraid to put it to a vote?”

Based upon those comments, it would be fair and logical to say that if the voters uphold the law by voting YES on Referred Law 6, Planned Parenthood & company would be satisfied that the people have spoken, thus the law would be allowed to go into effect. Of course, we know that their intentions are not true. We can make the assumption that if the voters of South Dakota uphold HB 1215 with a YES vote, Planned Parenthood will go back on their word to “let voters decide” and will seek judicial intervention.

It should be noted that the only way South Dakota stands to incur any costs associated with a lawsuit is if the pro-abortion side files one. They have claimed to be concerned about the costs of a lawsuit and have appealed to the voters to vote against the law in order to save the taxpayers’ money for other priorities. Let's be honest. Never in the past thirty-three years has Planned Parenthood apologized for suing the state of South Dakota at the expense of the taxpayer. If our opponents are sincere about either letting the voters decide this issue or their professed concern for the taxpayer, they will let the will of the majority prevail without filing subsequent legal challenges. In that case, the law would go into effect in South Dakota upon the electorate voting YES for Life on Referred Law 6. Otherwise, the usual suspects run the risk of challenging the law in the courts. This would prevent the law from taking effect immediately, but it also puts NARAL, PP, and the ACLU in the precarious position of going against the majority and possibly losing the “abortion-on-demand” status quo they currently enjoy nationwide.

3 Comments:

At August 26, 2006 9:32 PM, Blogger James said...

First I hear UNhealthy family saying this is all about the people. The dscond this goes to vote they start crying out saying this will cost us money.

NEWSFLASH!

UNhealthy family-Don't sue South Dakota and let the people decide.

I'm not surprised at these tactics, the pro-aborts have always used fear based tactics to scare voters.
Unfortunately it wont work this time.

 
At August 28, 2006 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brock – Are you willing to do the same? If 1215 goes down would you agree to vote against any abortion ban for the next 2 years? If the people decide against this, I’m convinced the legislature will be dealing with this again the first week of session. Would you commit to vote against it?

 
At August 30, 2006 9:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, nobody has ever promised not to bring a lawsuit to preserve current constitutional rights. So to say that Planned Parenthood or anyone else would be going back on a promise if they filed a lawsuit is untrue. Lying about someone breaking a promise is not very Christian.

Any expenses the state incurs in a lawsuit are attributable solely to the anti-choice side violating our federal constitutional rights with a law they know is unconstitutional.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home