在堕胎话题早已成为社会舆论和政治生活中一道重要风景线的美国，南达科他州（South Dakota）州长迈克·郎兹3月6日签署的一项禁止堕胎的法案，预料将再次掀起美国社会对妇女流产权和胎儿生存权的大辩论。 <>被强奸也不得流产 这项法律禁止南达科他州内几乎所有的堕胎行为，甚至包括受害人被强奸或乱伦而导致的怀孕。唯一的例外是当孕妇的生命受到威胁。否则，实施堕胎手术的医生就被视为违法，最高可判处5年监禁。 身为共和党人的朗兹州长在签署法案后发表了一份书面声明称：“在世界历史上，对于文明的真正考验是看人们怎样对待社会上最弱势和无助的群体。这项法案的发起者和支持者们相信，堕胎是错误的，因为未出世的孩子是我们社会中最弱势也是最无助的人。我认同他们的意见。” 据悉，当前打算跟进的州还包括密苏里、密西西比、印第安纳、佐治亚、肯塔基、俄亥俄、田纳西等至少7个州。其中密西西比州议会已经在3月2日通过了一项法案，规定除强奸、乱伦导致的受孕，以及危及孕妇生命的情况外，均不得堕胎；而密苏里州则在上周提出了一项与南达科他州相同的禁止堕胎提案。 最早今年7月起生效 南达科他州议会在2月23日投票通过了这项法案，在得到州长签字认可后，还需得到最高法院的认可才能生效，最早也要到今年7月。 为此，南达科他州当局正面临着艰苦卓绝的“护法战”。这项法案与1973年美国联邦最高法院认定堕胎合法的罗诉韦德（Roev.Wade）划时代判决背道而驰。支持妇女流产权利的组织和团体也声称，这项法律太极端，他们将不计代价，以确保妇女及医生的医疗决定权。 经营南达科他州唯一堕胎诊所的“家庭计划联盟”（PlannedPar－enthood）称，这项法律“悍然违宪”，极其危险且得不到大多数美国人的支持。该组织表示，他们将采取一切必要手段----—不管是提起联邦诉讼或是发动南达科他州全民公投，来废止这项法律。 根据州法律，如果反对者能在未来3个月收集到16728份注册选民的签名，禁止堕胎法律就将延迟生效，并在今年11月就此举行全民公投。 可能推翻30年前判决 “我最担心的就是这样美国会成为一个各州分立的国家，在有些州可以进行安全合法的流产，而在另外一些州这样做则是非法的。”拥护妇女应该有流产权利的凯特·卢比说，“对很多人来说，这项法律是切身相关的。我想那些立法者并不十分了解女人在这个问题上的想法。” 尽管这项法律在全美范围激起了支持堕胎权利人士的怒火，但也同时受到反对人工流产人士们的欢迎。南达科他州州长朗兹说，自从上个月州议会对堕胎法案进行讨论并引发全美关注以来，许多反对堕胎者正在筹集资金。其中一名匿名捐款人还承诺拿出100万美元，誓要帮助州政府应对可能面临的法庭诉讼。 该法案的主要支持者、民主党籍州参议员茱莉·巴特林说：“我认为这是南达科他保护胎儿生命及权利的时候。”巴特林和支持者们认为，保守派大法官罗伯茨和艾里托最近相继上任，联邦最高法院考虑推翻30年前的“罗诉韦德案”判决的可能性也增大了。 布什的反堕胎立场 美国自从1973年开始堕胎合法化后，堕胎话题争议不断。 堕胎问题也是美国政治上一个颇具争议和情感色彩的议题。对现任总统布什而言，无论是基于保守派立场，还是个人立场，他都是一名坚决的反堕胎人士。布什政府2002年1月重新规定还在母体中培育的胎儿的含义，新的定义为“未来的孩子”。这显然支持了堕胎反对者。布什形容有关法例很重要，可以杜绝一种令人厌恶的做法，也可在美国建立一种支持生命的文化。王靓 美国人看堕胎 由美联社最新展开的一项民意调查显示，绝大多数美国人认为在特定的环境下，堕胎应属于合法行为。 19%认为在任何情况下，堕胎都合法。 32%认为在绝大多数情况下，堕胎合法。 27%认为在绝大多数情况下，堕胎非法。 16%认为在任何情况下，堕胎都非法。 6%不确定。 东方网报道 AP - 2 hours, 24 minutes ago PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest. State of South Dakota | EIGHTY-FIRST SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2006 |
| 529M0546 | HOUSE BILL NO. 1215 |
Introduced by: Representatives Hunt, Brunner, Deadrick, Dykstra, Gillespie, Glenski, Haverly, Heineman, Howie, Hunhoff, Jensen, Jerke, Klaudt, Koistinen, Kraus, Krebs, Lange, McCoy, Michels, Miles, Nelson, Novstrup, Pederson (Gordon), Rausch, Rhoden, Tornow, Turbiville, Van Etten, Weems, Wick, and Willadsen and Senators Bartling, Abdallah, Earley, Kelly, Kloucek, Koskan, McNenny, Moore, Napoli, and Schoenbeck |
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited.
Section 2. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.
Section 3. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
Section 4. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice. Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute. Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.
Section 5. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Terms used in this Act mean: (1) "Pregnant," the human female reproductive condition, of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth; (2) "Unborn human being," an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth; (3) "Fertilization," that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum.
Section 6. That § 34-23A-2 be repealed.
34-23A-2. An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed in compliance with § 34-23A-3, 34-23A-4, or 34-23A-5.
Section 7. That § 34-23A-3 be repealed.
34-23A-3. An abortion may be performed by a physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
Section 8. That § 34-23A-4 be repealed.
34-23A-4. An abortion may be performed following the twelfth week of pregnancy and through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital licensed under the provisions of chapter 34-12 or in a hospital operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either or in the case of hospital facilities not being available, in the licensed physician's medical clinic or office of practice subject to the requirements of § 34-23A-6.
Section 9. That § 34-23A-5 be repealed.
34-23A-5. An abortion may be performed following the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital authorized under § 34-23A-4 and only if there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of a provision of this Act, the provisions of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, of this Act are similarly enjoined, suspended, or delayed during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation.
Section 11. If any court of law finds any provision of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of this Act are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of § § 34-23A-2, 34-23A-3, 34-23A- 4, and 34-23A-5, as of June 30, 2006, are immediately reeffective.
Section 12. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act.
Major laws concerning abortion: U.S. and Canada Note:
The following is general information only, and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Do not make any decisions on the basis of this essay. If you have a personal problem in this area, you may want to consult a legal professional. This text is believed to be accurate when it was last edited. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's famous Roe v. Wade decision, abortions were permitted in certain states but banned in others. The court ruled in 1973 that, anywhere in the U.S.: 1  | a woman and her doctor may freely decide to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester, | | state governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman's health. | | abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman's health or life are at risk; state governments can prohibit other abortions. |
| Require counseling and/or a cooling-off period before an abortion is performed. | | Require an underage woman to notify, or obtain permission, from a parent, guardian or court. | | End government financial support for women in poverty who seek abortions. | | Ban abortions after viability of the fetus unless required to preserve the woman's life or health. | | Ban all abortions. | | Ban a D&X abortion procedure, except when performed on a dead fetus or to save the life of the woman. |
The Roe v. Wade case involved a pregnant single woman ("Roe") who brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which prohibited any abortion except to save the woman's life. A married couple (the "Does") separately attacked the laws on the basis that an accidental pregnancy could find them unprepared for childbearing and could pose a hazard to the wife's health. The Does' appeal was rejected as being too speculative. The Supreme court found that: "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here..... violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy... " For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Subsequent court decisions defined the term "preservation of health" very broadly, to include such situations as a woman being suicidally depressed about being pregnant. Mr. Justice Stewart issued a concurring statement which said in part: "Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas." Mr. Justice Rhenquist issued a dissenting opinion. He noted that there was no proof that Roe was in her first trimester when she filed her original suite. He said: "While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others." Noting that an abortion requires the services of a physician, he felt that such an operation is "not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution." He felt that the court was not justified in declaring the entire Texas statute to be unconstitutional. Rather, it should have been declared unconstitutional as applied "to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole." "Roe" never did obtain an abortion. Additional U.S. laws restricting abortions:16 states still have pre-1973 anti-abortion laws on the books even though they are clearly unconstitutional and nullified under Roe v. Wade. However some of them would be immediately enforceable if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the future. Others would remain unenforceable until judicial injunctions were lifted. There have been many attempts since 1973 to reduce free access to abortions. Laws have been passed by some states and at the federal level to: The three most important decisions have been: Independent of the state and federal laws, physicians who perform abortions are restricted by the regulations of their state's Medical Association. They typically do not permit abortions after 20 or 21 week gestation unless the woman's health or life are seriously at risk. A current survey of abortion laws is available on-line. This includes general abortion laws, post-viability abortions, partial-birth abortions, chemical abortions, viability testing, spousal consent, parental consent, informed consent, waiting periods, clinic harassment, licensing, "gag rules," public funding, etc. 2 Canadian laws and regulations:During 1988, the Canadian Supreme Court declared the Federal law regulating abortion (Section 287 of the Criminal Code) was in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- the Canadian constitution. It was thus unconstitutional. Parliament tried to pass a replacement law, but was unable to compromise on a suitable wording. The country has remained to this day without a law regulating abortions. Decisions are left up to the women, their doctors and medical associations. Abortions are readily available up to 20 weeks in hospitals of most large cities, and in a few free-standing clinics. However, access is spotty across the country. Abortions are not available in Prince Edward Island, or in many rural areas, for example. Area medical services are often being consolidated in a single hospital. If the surviving facility is operated by a Roman Catholic group, then individuals and couples are frequently denied local access to birth control, STD and abortion information and services. A bill to restrict abortions was introduced into the House of Commons in 1990. It was approved on 1990-MAY-29, but defeated in the Senate by a tie vote on 1991-JAN-31.3 Section 223 of the Criminal Code states that "a person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being." That is, for a person to be charged with murder after the death of a fetus, the fetus would have to be intentionally injured before or during birth, would have to be born alive, and later die. |
