Update: As I recently reported, South Dakota could have made it state law that “no licensed physician may knowingly dismember a living unborn child with the intent of endangering the life or health of the baby”. But, according to LifeSiteNews, a committee of the South Dakota House of Representatives has voted down a bill that would have prevented abortion procedures that dismember children in the womb.
“…The motion, which had 17 sponsors, died in the House Health and Human Services Committee by a 11-1 vote. Three of the bill’s sponsors voted to table the measure; one, Manny Steele, voted to keep the bill alive…House Bill 1241 would have made it a felony to perform any abortion procedure that causes a fetus to become “dismembered”. Because fetuses are rarely removed completely intact during abortions, the bill could have effectively banned the procedure entirely…”
“This doesn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen before,” Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager for the Guttmacher Institute, told HuffPost. “It looks like it’s trying to ban abortion using language that is completely unfamiliar and very inflammatory.”
Unfamiliar and inflammatory…language? Why does that bother you, Ms. Nash? Obviously, the procedure itself that dismembers babies does not cause you concern, so why would you be concerned about the horrific description of “partial-birth” abortions contained within the bill? The truth, I suppose, can be “unfamiliar and inflammatory” -if your objective is to hide barbaric practices behind “pro-choice” rhetoric.
South Dakota caves, abortionists win…my head wants to explode.