The new Legislative Incarceration Fiscal Impact Statements offer some instructive commentary on this year's tedious anti-abortion grandstanding from our state legislators.
House Bill 1162 bans sex-selective abortions. HB 1240 bans abortion due to Down Syndrome. HB 1241 bans abortions that dismember or decapitate living fetuses. House Bills 1162, 1240, and 1241 all give our Republican legislators the chance to rend their shirts and tear their hair over the Auschwitzian terror wrought on entities who have no constitutional rights.
But according to the LIFIS from the Legislative Research Council, this we-love-babies-and-curse-you-sinning-sex-havers legislation will have little real impact:
- HB 1162: "...violations are likely to be rare and successful prosecutions very rare. Hence, its impact on jail populations is statistically irrelevant."
- HB 1240: "...violations are likely to be very rare and it is inconceivable that anyone who is not a well-trained specialist physician with ready access would ever be in a position to violate this Act. It is equally inconceivable to assume that anyone, in that position, would violate this Act. Hence, its impact on jail populations is statistically irrelevant."
- HB 1241: "...violations are likely to be very rare and it is inconceivable that anyone who is not a well-trained specialist physician with ready access would ever be in a position to violate this Act. It is equally inconceivable to assume that anyone, in that position, would violate this Act. Hence, its impact on jail and prison populations is statistically irrelevant."
Statistically irrelevant, but emotionally oh-so-satisfying: that's the modus operandi for far too many legislators who go to Pierre to make up issues rather than to solve real problems.
But at least sponsoring legislators Reps. Jenna Haggar and Isaac Latterell are proving they really aren't worth a pay raise.
Rich women have full reproductive liberty while middle and lower income women face more chilling effect on their rights to live lives or pursue happiness: all at the clutches of an extremist anti-choice legislature.
Cue up the Kermit Gosnell choir in 3-2-1..... These tools in the legislature make laws based on the well to do's ability to afford them. Those women with the financial means always have choices,others-not so much. Just like IP stated above. Would that these legislators remove the religious colored glasses and walk a mile in the shoes of the less well off. Like their lord and saviour supposedly did before them.
Suppose all this recent abortion related legislation passes and become law, how are they enforced, what are the prison sentences, fines and court costs? What is the current rate of successful prosecution of women that have had an abortion? How many are serving prison time and in what states?
Will the women in these situations report them? Will the doctor? Is there a database of pregnant women with a notation next to the names of who may want an abortion so Hagger and Latterell can be notified?
This legislature needs to be called the "ban" legislature, ban abortions, ban texting, ban gay cakes and on and on. Do these people not understand the meaning of "proactive" except when it serves their own needs.
As Cory pointed out, the likelihood of any of these things happening is next to nil and irrelevant.
In China and India where sex selective abortions are popular, the only way to curb the practice at all was to make it unlawful to reveal the sex to the parents. Laws were enacted in 1988 in India and 1994 in China but parents still found ways to get around it.
And in response to Interested and Mike: why don't you just come right out and say it: you want poor women to have abortions because the babies poor women produce aren't white. Only about 15% of women of childbearing age who are living below the Poverty line are white women living in all white households. The other 85% are producing babies of color. I get it: you want all the non-white babies killed. Admit it. Why else would you want to kill them ?
Anne Beal-emote much? In as far as a man can have abortions(we can't),I'm pro-choice. Better yet,it is none of my business what a woman decides to do with her reproductive rights. I don't advocate abortions either way. But I sure as hell am not gonna tell you you can or cannot have one. That is YOUR CHOICE. All these wingnut abortion restrictions are aimed at the poor and middle class women who do not have the resources necessary to afford more children or travel vast distances to obtain an abortion and has nothing to do with race. It is about leveling the playing field and equality for everyone.
A foetus is not a baby until the 26th week, Mrs. Beal.
Ah, so if folks will just find ways around it, if the law is unenforceable, then aren't conservatives obliged to oppose the law as unnecessary?
And Anne, you don't win an argument by arguing against things you wish your opponents said or believed. My opposition to these needless bills has nothing to do with which specific person might or might not have an abortion. It has everything to do with (1) every woman's inalienable and constitutional right to autonomy over her own body and (2, a far secondary 2) the statistically irrelevant practical impact and political-grandstanding motivation of these laws. Argue with the people who are here, Anne, not the monsters in your imagination.
sigh. Democracy in South Dakota = We will go around the voters if we disagree with them.
In 2006, the "abortion ban" was put on the ballot in South Dakota. 59% of South Dakotans voted against this. In 2008, it was attempted again. And again, South Dakotans tried to send the legislators a clear message. 55.3% of voters rejected this. Those votes fell on deaf ears.
Freedom. Why does the gov't (specifically South Dakota) continue to give us lip service on wanting "big government" out of our lives. Yet, they turn around and do everything they can to insert themselves into decisions that are between a woman, her family, and her doctor? (don't see that happening when a man wants to have any type of medical procedure. To include, anything having to do with male reproduction) Legislating against a woman's decisions on what she wants to do with her body is taking away freedom. Period. This is also about privacy. It is none of anybody's business what anyone, male or female, does medically. Well, unless you are Betty Olson's constituents, where it is apparent that she just loves sharing medical issues of this person or that person in her weekly articles.
One "itsy bitsy teeny weeny" other part about this. Roe v Wade is the law of the land and has been for decades. The-Law-Of-The-Land. Period. Legalizing and state sponsored removal of our freedoms is very frightening. Basing decisions on disproven and unscientific propaganda is frightening also. This is also about controlling women. Sad, but true.
When slavery was the law of the land, did not make it right. When Roe vs Wade is the law of the land does not make it right. When Hitler killed Jews was the law of the land did not make it right.
Republicans want to protect babies, Democrats want to protect us from greedy corporations. To add a little positive here, they both have some good points. Can everyone have a little less selfishness and be fair to everyone rather than live by greed and what we want for ourself at the moment.
Roger E.
You offer some great sentiment, but what the Republicans want is control of women's reproduction rights, there is a difference.
What selfishness is that,Roger E? Korporate Amerika,with help from the right and a load of pure BS from the activist,wingnut Scotus are free to buy pols and elections to get whatever they want. They aren't doing this for you or me. I support a woman's right to decide for herself what to do with her reproductive life. If a woman decides to have that baby,then I want the government to make sure that child has adequate food,shelter,healthcare and education. You can't force children to be born and then ignore them until you can legally execute them. How is that being selfish?
"You can't force children to be born and then ignore them until you can legally execute them." Perfect Mike, perfect. Dana, Cory, Roger C - you nailed it.
I will believe anti-choice laws are not about controlling women the very nanosecond a bill is passed, signed into law, becomes effective, and is enforced that controls a man's reproduction. The very nanosecond. With my whole heart and mind. No question.