‘Unborn’ plan abandoned

By Joe Kafka, Associated Press Writer | Saturday, February 18, 2006

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

PIERRE — Worried that voters may be confused and reject it, South Dakota legislators dumped a proposed ballot measure Friday that was designed to stress that there is no right under the state constitution to an abortion.

The state constitution is silent on the subject of abortion, and proposed constitutional amendment SJR2 would help assure that the document grants no right to the procedure, Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, said.

“It would attempt to neutralize our constitution as an independent source of abortion rights,” the abortion opponent said.

The measure, which was unanimously killed by the House State Affairs Committee, would make it clear that the state constitution provides no right to an abortion, Bartling said. It would not prevent the Legislature from enacting laws, however, that would outlaw abortion or create exemptions for instances of rape or incest, she said.

Committee members said the language of the proposal, which would not have been successful in the end unless put on the ballot and approved by voters, was vague and made them uneasy. Voters will have a variety of ballot issues to decide in November, and they may not understand SJR2, legislators said.

Rep. Matthew Michels, R-Yankton, said both legislators and voters have a tendency to reject things they do not fully understand. If Bartling’s proposal is put on the ballot, it may fail, he said. “It’s a great risk as to the mixed message that we might receive,” Michels said.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said after the meeting that she believed legislators rejected the proposal because it could have turned into a referendum on abortion — with results that those against abortion may not have expected.

Legislators killed the measure rather than take a chance that it may backfire at the polls, Looby said. The measure would have allowed South Dakota voters to weigh in on the abortion issue for the first time, she said.

“Once the legislators realized they would be limiting their own ability to control the women and families of South Dakota if the voters rejected a constitutional amendment in November, they quickly decided to eliminate the resolution,” she said.

Rep. Pat Haley, D-Huron, agreed with Looby.

“It would be very interesting to see what the people think about it,” he mused.

“We might be surprised what people in South Dakota have to say about abortion or abortion rights or the right to privacy,” Haley said.

Other committee members said there was no need for the measure anyway because the state constitution already includes provisions that protect life and liberty interests.

Among opponents of SJR2 was Jennifer Ring of the American Civil Liberties Union of the Dakotas. She said the proposal to change the constitution would be a step backward.

“This is the first thing that you’re contemplating putting into your Bill of Rights that restricts rather than protects or expands rights,” Ring said.

Jamie Johnson of South Dakota Right to Life said the measure should be put on the ballot to assist in the state battle against abortion.

“It is necessary to protect our constitution from what happened to the federal Constitution in Roe v. Wade,” she said of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming a woman’s right to have an abortion.