But until you read the text of HCR1004, which was passed 60-10 by the house last week, you will not be informed on the most consequential and unbelievable situation we face as a state, or what the legislature believes should be done about it. I urge you to stop reading this article–don’t even finish it–Go read HCR1004. It’s absolutely eye-opening. Even if you think you know the issue, it will enlighten, infuriate, and motivate you. If I accomplish nothing else but this, this article will have done its job.
In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As for the state of South Dakota, we recognize that the State has both the right and the unqualified duty to protect every human being and their personal intrinsic rights. This includes a pregnant mother’s intrinsic right to her relationship with her child, as well as the child’s intrinsic right to life. These cherished rights are compatible and harmonious, regardless of unfortunate circumstances that could sadly invoke thoughts that she should terminate her own rights as well as terminate her child’s life.
It is the law, as it represents the collective interests of the individuals for whom the law exists, that must protect life. Long ago, our law protected life and the mother’s beautiful interest in her child’s life. It protected innocent children over the misguided philosophies and trends in social thought, which come and go.
But there remains today such a tragic case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which together with its progeny, continues to violate the intrinsic rights of two large classes of human beings, and bars the people of the Sovereign States, and their elected representatives, from taking effective, corrective action to protect the intrinsic rights of those human beings.
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1973 in the case of Roe v. Wade has never been nor should be accepted as a valid constitutional decision by most legal experts. Roe v. Wade has been the subject of constant criticism from the people of the states, and legal scholars. They are not nor should be accepted by the People of South Dakota and they are not nor should be accepted by us, their elected representatives. In short, the errors of the court in Roe v. Wade and its following cases still stand in the way of our ability to fulfill our duty to the people we represent.
It is our most solemn duty as a people to protect life, and to protect the mother’s interest in her child’s life. The South Dakota Legislature has a history of advancing legislation to reflect the will of the people to protect life, as well as shed light on one of America’s darkest evils, the horror of abortion—the dismemberment of living unborn human beings.
Virtually every statute we have passed to protect the interests of pregnant mothers has been attacked in Court by an abortion clinic and its physicians claiming that Roe v. Wade prohibits our rational and carefully thought out legislation. Much of that legislation was designed to protect the pregnant mothers against the negligence and dereliction of the abortion providers themselves.
Despite clear conflict of interest, the abortion providers claimed in Court to represent the rights of the pregnant mothers, and based upon Roe v. Wade and its cases, the federal district court permitted the abortion providers to stand in the place of the very women whose rights they violated. In December, 2012, litigation over South Dakota’s 2005 Informed Consent Law was finally concluded.
South Dakota prevailed on all of the issues, but the case took seven and a half years to litigate and South Dakota had to prevail in three different decisions of the United States Court of Appeals, including two separate opinions by two en banc courts, a very rare circumstance where the entire case was re-heard and overturned by the full court panel due to the exceptionally serious nature of the issue.
The defense of the litigation over laws designed to protect the women of our state was time consuming and lower court injunctions prevented the laws from becoming effective for a number of years, robbing the children and their mothers of the Law’s protection. The fact that abortion providers know that courts following Roe often produce erroneous outcomes to their advantage has actually encouraged bad lawsuits.
Calling on the Supreme court to overturn its erroneous decision in Roe v. Wade is not without historical precedent. In fact, the court has reversed itself over 230 times. Some of the Court’s previous errors so violated the intrinsic rights of the people that they gave rise to an active national resistance. In the 1856 case Dred Scott v. Sanford, the court ruled that a class of human beings could be bought and sold as property. Additional rulings like Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education similarly illustrate how erroneous court decisions can intrinsically violate the rights of human beings, will never be accepted by the people, and must be reversed.
Please take the time to read HCR1004, you’ll be glad you did.