Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report Summarizes Editorials, Opinion Pieces About South Dakota Bill That Would Ban Abortion
Des Moines Register: South Dakota's "sweeping attack on abortion rights" could lead the Supreme Court to review Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively outlawed state abortion bans -- a Register editorial says. "Such contempt for the right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term -- even under horrific circumstances, even before the fetus is viable -- defies moral logic," the editorial says, concluding that the decision in Roe "should stand" (Des Moines Register, 2/28).
Honolulu Star-Bulletin: After the South Dakota Legislature's decision to send the bill to the governor, the question now "is how long it will take for the issue to travel from the floors of South Dakota's legislature to the [Supreme Court's] chambers," according to a Star-Bulletin editorial. Abortion-rights opponents have "been relegated for 33 years" to focusing on issues such as when a fetus is constitutionally protected and so-called "partial-birth" abortion, the editorial says, concluding, "Unfortunately, the core issue seems destined for battle" (Star-Bulletin, 2/27).
Las Vegas Sun: Women in South Dakota "are in danger of losing their right to choose because their interests and well-being were ignored in what amounts to a quest for a long-awaited political win," a Sun editorial says. "This defeat for women's reproductive rights emphasizes the importance of the decisions we make when we vote, whether it's electing a state representative or the president of the United States," the editorial says (Las Vegas Sun, 2/26).
USA Today: "No matter how sincere the beliefs of abortion-[rights] opponents, a ban is ... an attempt to impose one group's faith on others," according to a USA Today editorial. The editorial adds, "The notion of a constitutional right to privacy is also the barrier that prevents government meddling in other areas where sex intersects with religious belief." The editorial concludes, "Unless checked," South Dakota's abortion ban "could lead to the most draconian rollback of personal liberties in U.S. history" (USA Today, 2/28). Opinion Pieces
Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times: The South Dakota abortion ban is about state legislators "who ... are more concerned with making sure that you and your daughters live your lives according to their divine plan," columnist Steinberg writes in a Sun-Times opinion piece. He adds that "[b]anning the popular" -- such as alcohol during prohibition -- "has always been a dead end in this country" and "it won't work for abortion either" (Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times, 2/27).
Ruth Ann Dailey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Although "alarm bells keep ringing on the left, the ascendancy" of politicians such as those in South Dakota "does in fact represent the will of the people," columnist Dailey writes in a Post-Gazette opinion piece. "By definition, these elected officials reflect the will of most South Dakotans, and their pro-life stand was accomplished through representative self-government rather than judicial fiat," Dailey says (Dailey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/27).
Roger Hunt, USA Today: "As states contemplate the issue of abortion, it is clear that the selective termination of unborn human life is the greatest equal protection challenge facing our country today," South Dakota state Rep. Roger Hunt (R), a sponsor of South Dakota's abortion ban bill, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. "The time has come to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue of abortion to the 50 states," Hunt writes, concluding, "The time has come for all unborn children to receive due process and equal protection under the law" (Hunt, USA Today, 2/28).
Garry Moore, Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan: The abortion issue "is one that will continue to plague the legislative process" until a state's residents can be allowed to vote on the issue or a law is passed to test Roe constitutionally, South Dakota Sen. Garry Moore (D) says in a Press & Dakotan opinion piece. "It appears the latter is going to be the mechanism to resolve the issue," Moore says, adding that such a procedure will be a "great expense to the taxpayer." Moore adds that he is opposed to the creation of an account to hold funds donated by people seeking to help the state fight an expected lawsuit on the proposed abortion ban because "the message it sends is that legislators can be bought," and it "encourage[s] ... individuals and groups with money to influence legislation on their behalf." Moore concludes, "If we believe the law is good for South Dakota, we should use state resources to represent it, not special interest money" (Moore, Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, 2/27).
"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Kaiser zilnic politica de sãnãtate ale femeilor raport rezumã în editoriale, piese de opinie despre Dakota de Sud proiect de lege care ar interzicere avort - Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report Summarizes Editorials, Opinion Pieces About South Dakota Bill That Would Ban Abortion - articole medicale engleza - startsanatate