S.D. House Approves Abortion Bill

South Dakota lawmakers crafted a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade on Friday, passing a bill that bans abortions -- including in cases of rape or incest -- except for those in which the procedure is deemed necessary to save a woman’s life.

The sweeping measure, which Republican Gov. Michael Rounds said he was inclined to sign into law, seems certain to face legal challenge. Some abortion opponents say that is precisely the point.

With President Bush’s two recent appointments to the Supreme Court, antiabortion forces want to test whether the justices are willing to overturn the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

“I think the stars are aligned,” said South Dakota House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican who predicted the state’s law would put the issue squarely before the courts. “Simply put, now is the time.”

Under the measure, scheduled to take effect July 1, doctors could be sentenced to as many as five years in prison for performing an abortion.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only legal abortion clinic in South Dakota, has vowed to file a lawsuit seeking to block the measure. During floor debate in the state Capitol in Pierre, a lawmaker said he had received word of an anonymous pledge of at least $1 million to help defend the proposed ban.

On Friday, some abortion foes said that they disagreed with the Legislature’s action because they did not think there was yet a majority of Supreme Court justices ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade. In the meantime, they favor pushing for other measures intended to reduce the incidence of abortion -- such as bills pending in several states that would require women seeking abortions to view ultrasound images of their fetuses or be informed that a fetus might feel pain during the procedure.

Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life, a Chicago antiabortion group, said that though overturning Roe was the ultimate goal, the South Dakota bill was coming too early.

“It’s a bill that, while we appreciate the intentions ... it’s something we don’t think is a wise move to do at this point in time,” he said.

Neither of Bush’s appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., discussed during Senate confirmation hearings how he would vote on a challenge to abortion. Each, however, said he would show respect for judicial precedents established by the court.

The South Dakota bill may be a full-scale attack on the Supreme Court ruling, but there is no requirement that justices hear a challenge to it.

In the early 1990s, justices declined to hear cases involving abortion bans passed in Utah and Louisiana; instead, the Supreme Court let stand lower-court rulings that declared those laws unconstitutional.

Still, abortion rights advocates said they were alarmed by the GOP-controlled Legislature’s action. The House approved the bill, 50 to 18, reconciling its measure with one passed by the state Senate this week.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the bill “a chilling reminder of the lengths to which anti-choice lawmakers will go to interfere in our most difficult and personal decisions.”

“Clearly emboldened by President Bush’s judicial appointments,” she said, “South Dakota has passed dangerous and unconstitutional legislation that its supporters admit is a direct attack on Roe vs. Wade.”