www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News South Dakota legislation challenges Roe v. Wade

This is totally awesome! But if they can do it, so can other states. Also, did you see where Ohio passed a bill that only recognized marriage between a man and woman and also that the state benefits would only be given to a married couple. I would imagine that there is already someone going to file in court about it.

Pani Rose

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
South Dakota legislation challenges Roe v. Wade
Bill outlaws abortion in nearly all cases, sets punishment at up to 5 years in prison
Posted: January 22, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern


� 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A South Dakota legislator is hoping his bill outlawing nearly all abortions in the state will be the catalyst for overturning the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which was handed down exactly 31 years ago.

Rep. Matt McCaulley introduced the bill, House Bill 1191, today. It makes abortion a crime unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother, explained the Thomas More Law Center, which helped in drafting the legislation.

According to a statement form the center, the bill already has the support of a majority of members of both the state House and Senate. It was designed to "directly confront" Roe v. Wade, which overturned laws against abortion in all 50 states.

"This is a decision that should be made by the people in each of the states through their elected representatives, not by nine un-elected judges in a courtroom 1,500 miles from the capitol of South Dakota. This bill puts South Dakota in the forefront of the nation and says we will lead the fight to protect unborn children," said McCaulley, a Republican who was 4 months old when the high-court decision came down.

"Medical and scientific discoveries over the last 30 years have confirmed that life begins at conception, a question the Roe Court said they could not answer."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the center, acknowledged a likely court battle would ensue if the legislation is passed.

"Roe v. Wade was an exercise of raw judicial power not based on any reasonable interpretation of the constitutional text," said Thompson. "The Roe decision carries the same moral implications as the Dredd Scott decision that upheld slavery by regarding a segment of our population as non-persons. The court was wrong then, and the court is wrong now. We have a moral responsibility to confront this lawless decision whenever the opportunity presents itself."

The bill provides for exceptions to protect the life of the mother if birth or continued pregnancy constitutes a clear and immediate threat of death to the mother or serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The law would make the crime of abortion punishable by up to five years in state prison.

The law center says the bill is expected to pass both Houses handily. Gov. Mike Rounds "has previously vowed to protect life under all circumstances," the statement said.

The trouble with the "except to save the life of the mother" escape clause is that it leaves a loophole through which one could drive the proverbial coach and four. Incognitus

Dear Rose,

Thank you for posting this. I wish them God's blessings in their attempt.

Sadly, the current Supreme Court majority (by 5 to 4) upheld Roe vs. Wade some years ago after Justice Antonin Scalia (one of our most brilliant and greatest Albanians - most of us are brilliant but few are great ) forced an up/down vote on it. Nothing has changed since then except that the number of killed children has increased by a few million more and we (the Pro-Life Movement) were able to ban the sick DX procedure.

I also applaud their removal of the "rape and incest" exceptions since these imply that these children are less worthy of life than children conceived by consenting adults.

An exception "to save the life of the mother" is consistent with both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic teachings. However, the goal of the surgical procedure must be to save both mother and child.

The most common case would be an ectopic pregnancy wherein a doctor would attempt to move the growing fetus from the fallopian tube into the womb, knowing that attachment there is unlikely, but possible. God willing, the Lord will someday enlighten our medical men and women to learn how to make an attachment there more likely to succeed and ectopic pregnancy will no longer mean either death for both or the likely sacrifice of the child for life of the mother.

Most moms that I know would have willingly given their own lives in order to have brought their children into the world. Thus this decision (to attempt "to correct" an ectopic pregnancy) is even more painful for them.

Another acceptable case "to save the life of the mother," the removal of a fetus that has died in utero, is not technically abortion, and has not been seen by the Church in that way.

Perhaps I'm naive, (referring to Incognitus' post) but I don't see room for the "coach and four" unless those deciding what is life-threatening are going to be truly disingenuous. (May one properly say "truly disingenuous?" )

Implementation of the Church's teachings will never be perfect or establish heaven on earth (paraphrasing Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese), but perhaps it can keep the world from becoming a kind of hell.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew,

I thought (well, I thought I knew) that Scalia is Sicilian. Is it certain that he's a Sicilian of Albanian extraction?

Also, he is apparently Roman Catholic and neither Albanian Orthodox or Italo-Albanian Catholic.

Any information on your part, O Most Learned One, would be very much appreciated!

Logos Teen

Careful here.

The fact that the exception is specifically to allow an abortion precludes that the operation in question would be an attempt to save the life of the child.

The operation to remove and re-attach an ectopic amniotic sac (forgive my improper medical terms) is not considered an abortion.

Abortions are never permitted by Roman Catholic theology, viz. the allocution of Pius XII on stomach cancer in pregnant women.

In Christ,

Latin

Yes Latin,
You are right an abortion is never allowed even to save the life of the mother.
Stephanos I
The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church to fully uphold the sanctity of human life.
On this infamous day we as the intercession of all the Holy Innocents for the conversion of the hearts and minds of any who would debase human life and dignity.
Stephanos I

Dear LatinTrad:

I agree and I join Stephanos in his post: no Church other than the Catholic Church which allows NO exceptions to the performance of abortion or any similar procedure, even if certain death of the mother is occasioned in the birth of an unborn child.

AmdG

Dear Logos Teen:

You are right!

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia IS Roman Catholic and not Albanian Orthodox. However, having been born in New Jersey, I am unsure whether he is Sicilian of Albanian descent or other.

I remember reading his fine distinction between capital punishment (death penalty), which he supports under certain circumstances, and his pro-life stance (anti-abortion). He said that if the time comes to revisit the Roe v. Wade case, he will vote to overturn it.

For his personal views on the death penalty and abortion, please read his article published in "First Things" at:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html

AmdG
(BTW, what is more "Catholic" than Justice Scalia having 9 children?)

I don't expect an overturn of Roe anytime soon and I'm not holding my breath for that one. The Supremes rarely do a toal overturn - although they have been known to pick away at pieces of a previous, bad decision until they have that effect. My guess is that the SD bill has to include the life and health of the mother, or it would never, ever survive to be a viable challenge.

We all know that just because a thing is legal to do, doesn't mean that it is right or moral. That's what the church and the faith community are for: to help us guide that moral compass. The law should reflect right and good and morality, yes, but it doesn't always. Where it doesn't, that's the job of the faith community.

Having had two friends who have had abortions, I can tell you that they came to the conclusion that they did an immoral thing on their own. As one friend with a married, childless sister bluntly put it, "my sister can't have a baby and I went and killed mine." A friend of mine had also told me that the people at the clinic were far more interested in giving her a pill that induced abortion than they were in her health or talking to her about any other "option" she might have had. She really wanted to hear about adoption, but she was embarrassed and alone and went to a clinic where they had only one answer. She told me that she suffered through the experience alone, with no idea as to whether something was going wrong, because she didn't want to go back there and she didn't want to go to her own doctor because, legal or not, she felt like a criminal. She said the clinic people were disinterested in her when she called with questions later.

I'd like to see the law change and I like to see attempts to change it. But I'd rather hang my hat on the attempts of people like us to educate women AND men before they have experiences like my friends have had.

As one of my friends told me, if she had really thought about what she was doing, she never would have done it. She lives with a cloying fear that she can never be forgiven. She even went so far as to talk to a Catholic priest (she wanted to do something like "confess" but her own reverend told her she didn't do anything wrong and that there was nothing to "confess" to, so he was a dead end). The priest told her that fortunately for all of us God has an infinite capacity for forgiveness and that He surely can forgive things that we believe are unforgiveable and hooked her up with Project Rachel. She was shocked to find out she wasn't alone.

I applaud those who draft laws like this, but converting people's hearts out of love and concern so they don't exercise their "choice" and commit a grave evil still seems to be where our most fruitful efforts lie.

The room for the coach and four in an exception "to save the life of the mother" comes about because the mother who wants an abortion can threaten to kill herself if she is not allowed the abortion! I am not hypothesizing; courts have actually required the "granting" of the abortion on such a ridiculous basis. Incognitus

Well, I did a little background search on Justice Scalia, and found out that he is half Sicilian and half Italian.

No trace of Albanian bloodlines that I could find.

Logos Teen

Latin Trad is right and my language was sloppy. In general, the language being used in the ProLife vs. ProChoice battle is rather sloppy.

Even thge Orthodox publications are sloppy in this manner. They mean what I'm trying to say below. I stand corrected.

Just as the removal of a fetus that has died in-utero is not "an abortion" the procedure to move the fetus from fallopian tube to uterus is not to rightly be termed "abortion." The problem is, many would do the first part of the operation without attempting the second part. That would be "an abortion." So our med-ethical Christian theologians need to give us some sharper terminology on these issues, if they haven't already.

I agree that the threat of suicide could be used. Many judges would "buy it." However, I work in a homeless shelter serving dozens of homeless youth, many with mental problems. One can only do so much to protect one from oneself. The expressed desire to abort/kill the child is only a manifestation of a destructive illness that would later on be directed again at self or others. I can't, as a Christian, see allowing this threat as a qualified exception. The goal of any surgical procedure ought to always be "do no harm."

So, in effect, I'm agreeing with the statement, "no abortions in any case," however, I'm pointing out that the common folk will misunderstand that to mean "no surgical procedures to save the life of the mother even if the fetus is dead or the pregnancy is ectopic." This second statement is not the position of the Orthodox & Catholic Churches.

With love in Christ,
Andrew


PS: The Hon. Antonin Scalia is of Arberesh heritage, on at least one parental side. The Arberesh live all over Southeren Italy and Sicily and were primarily, but not exclusively, Eastern Rite when they arrived (1450-1700s). Some were RC from Northern Albania, like the family of Pope Clement XI or XII (circa 1700). I never claimed that Scalia was Orthodox/Eastern Rite!!!

Arberesh rarely use the word "Albanian" since that term post-dates their own arrival in the West. They were "Arberesh" and sometimes "Epiroti" (which leaves open possibilities for being ethnically Greek, as well). Their language is clearly Albanian from the 15th-19th century.

Here in Michigan, we are in the process of overriding the Governor's veto of the "Legal Birth Definition Act"

It's pretty much a Partial Birth Abortion Ban that does so by defining 'Birth' as when any portion of the childs body appears outside the physical boundries of the mother.

It will be a crime to deliberatly cause the death of such a child

except " To save the life of the mother and every reasonable effort was made to preserve the life of both the mother and the perinate"

Since there aren't enought votes in the State Legislature to override by a 2/3's majority, we are using a provision called a "people's override".

If we collect 320,000 signatures and the Legislature approves by simple majority, the veto is overridden.

Every parish in the ArchDiocese of Detroit is required to have a volunteer staffed table available for this Petition (my wife and I are running our parishes )

Scotus,

May God remember and reward you both for your work to glorify Him and honor His gift of life!

In Christ,
Andrew

God bless you Scotus,

Scripture states where sin abounds His mercy is greater. May God's mercy fall upon all of you that people may serch you out desiring to sign that petition. May all of you be graced with wisdom to speak the truth of Jesus, that the ears of the deaf shall be opened, and the majority of the people in the land will show the truth of love to a very hurting people that are so deceived by the darkness of this world that they have been blinded to YOUR truth.