- Feb
14
2013
In its afternoon meeting yesterday, the House State Affairs committee gave unanimous approval to House Bill 1214. Rep. Bernie Hunhoff (D-18/Yankton) brought this bill to ensure that all pregnant low-income women in South Dakota can receive prenatal care—all women, including those who aren't citizens.
The good read of HB 1214 is that we love babies. As Rep. Hunhoff said in committee, we are a better state than our current stingy laws suggest.
The bad read of HB 1214 is that we're handing out benefits to illegal immigrants, 184 a year, according to Rep. Hunhoff's data on illegal-immigrant births in South Dakota.
Rep. David Novstrup (R-3/Aberdeen) and Rep. Mike Verchio (R-30/Hill City) must be getting soft with age. These two House State Affairs members voted for this important health benefit for illegal immigrant women yesterday. But just two years ago, they co-sponsored legislation that would have made it illegal for any health care provider to knowingly harbor those illegal immigrant patients in their offices. Hmm... maybe there's hope yet that the South Dakota GOP can govern with its heart rather than with its ALEC talking points.
19 Responses to “HB 1214 Provides Prenatal Care for Illegal Immigrants”
It's a good day when SD law recognizes the life in the womb and invests in the health of that unborn human being. Pro-abortion legislators should be deeply conflicted with this bill. Apparently to them, what makes a life worth protecting is only a matter of whether or not it is wanted.
Steve, we're all pro-life. Some of us also happen to be pro-women. You may wish for a conflict, but that doesn't make it so: I can quite comfortably support providing prenatal care to women who need it and support women's constitutional right to abortion.
The contradiction is blatent and gross. You are saying the state has an interest to ensure the health and vitality of wanted children and yet the state should tolerate the killing of unwanted children. There is nothing pro-life about dismembering living human beings without anesthesia. It's remarkable to me you have more compassion and concern for cats, dogs and horses as I note you supported the felony animal cruelty bill.
blatant, rev.
This bill is relief for counties hit hard by the numbers of medical cases wrapped in tin foil.
Hunhoff likes Catholic babies. Primary opposition to prevention of the invasion of illegal aliens has been the Catholic Church. CBS hit this nail on the head about 35 years ago.
Illegal aliens practically have an industry in getting pregnant females into the US so the children born are US citizens. It is all a cynical abuse of our sympathy in the interests of overpopulation and exploiting US systems for money.
Woman's constitutional right to bodily integrity and freedom from government-imposed servitude are the trump card here, Steve. Apples and oranges.
Hickey said, "There is nothing pro-life about dismembering living human beings without anesthesia."
The majority of abortions are done in the first trimester, therefore the fetus doesn't have the ability to feel pain. As for later-term abortions, you obviously don't have the slightest idea on protocol. The first step is a shot to the heart of the fetus, which stops it. The fetus feels zero pain. Then the woman is induced by various means. By the time the abortion, or delivery occurs, the fetus is already gone, so it feels no pain. It is comparable to conducting an autopsy.
As for the upcoming abortion bills, you can be pro-life, yet understand that both bills undermine women. HB 1237 implies that women can't think on the weekends. Hickey, you have a daughter, do you think her mind turns to mush on the weekends and she can't think?
I am in favor of all women having pre-natal care, whether they can afford it or not. But if the pregnant woman is working for a place or being supported by someone who works for a place that exploits illegal workers, the employer, not the state should bear the financial responsibility.
A state does not have a heart any more than a corporation does, only people.
The fundamentalists' God is the biggest abortionist. I suppose that all the spontaneous abortions by God are necessary because of that God's omniscience, but we might also wonder if both that God and the Devil are one in the same. Seems like something for the fundamentalists to ponder when they start their rants on the evil of abortion and their mindnumbing legislative attempts to convert fetal tissue into the equivalent of living sucking and screaming babies.
By definition, prenatal care is for the child. These children are US citizens.
Troy nails it. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
They aren't children until they are born. That children in the womb being US citizens is crap.
I have a neonatal nurse standing over my shoulder as I type this. Prenatal care is intended as care as for both mother and fetus. Depending on state law, a fetus is not a child until it emerges from the uterus at 24 weeks or can be resuscitated at 23 weeks.
I second Douglas's comment. Can we ascribe citizenship to the unborn? I don't have a problem with justifying this bill as compassionate care for women.
Philosophically? I agree with Doug, too. Montana's red state legislature is considering a fetal personhood bill. The good news: the governor, a Democrat, will veto it if it survives a floor vote.
The US Constitution should be amended so that a child born in the US becomes a citizen only after the parents have been legal citizens for over 1 year.
Statehood for the tribes and Mexico.
Leave a Reply