Menu
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

South Dakota to U.S. Supreme Court: Overturn Roe v. Wade

Posted on February 19, 2015February 23, 2015 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

newborn
 

 

“The right and duty to preserve life cannot co-exist with a right or duty to destroy it. The right and duty to preserve and protect the cherished relationship between mother and child cannot  co-exist with a right and duty to destroy it.”  

South Dakota House Concurrent Resolution, HCR 1004, passed 2/5/15

On February 5, 2015, both houses of the South Dakota legislature passed a resolution (HCR 1004) calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Citing the Court’s history of overturning previous decisions that had denied human rights, including overturning Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856) which had upheld slavery laws and Plessy v. Furguson  (1896) which had upheld segregation, South Dakota has called on the Court to overturn the 1973 decision which, along with its companion case Doe v. Bolton (1973) and protect the intrinsic rights of unborn children.

The resolution is the result of a decade of legislative effort. In 2005, the South Dakota legislature created, by statute, the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, which issued a seventy-one page report.  Despite attempts by the legislature to protect pregnant mothers against, in the words of the resolution, “the negligence and dereliction of abortion providers themselves,” the federal district court had “permitted  the abortion providers to stand in the place of the very women whose rights they violated.”

The resolution cites the legal history of the informed consent laws,  and states, “The right and duty to preserve life cannot co-exist with a right or duty to destroy it. The right and duty to preserve and protect the cherished relationship between mother and child cannot  co-exist with a right and duty to destroy it. It is the law, as it represents the collective interests  of the individuals for whom it exists, that must choose which set of interests it must protect, and long ago our law was required to choose life over death; the mother’s beautiful interest in her child’s life over its destruction; the protection of innocent children over the misguided philosophies and trends in social thought which come and go.”

” If there are any self-evident and universal truths that can act for the human race as a guide or light in which social and human justice can be grounded, they are these: that life has intrinsic value; that each individual human being is unique and irreplaceable; that the cherished role of a mother and her relationship with her child, at every moment of life, has intrinsic worth and beauty; that the intrinsic beauty of motherhood is inseparable from the beauty of womanhood; and that this relationship, its unselfish nature and its role in the survival of the race is the touchstone and core of all civilized society. Its denigration is the denigration of the human race.  This relationship, its beauty, its survival, its benefits to the mother and child, its benefits to society, all rest in the self-evident truth that a mother is not the owner of her child’s life – she is the trustee of it…”

The resolution continues with a detailed history of the issues and case law, and requests that the Court to “select the case that most properly presents the important issues, in order to reassess Roe and Casey, and overturn them.”

HCR 1004 is available online: http://legis.sd.gov/docs/legsession/2015/Bills/HCR1004P.pdf

 

###

Photo:  iStockPhoto.com

  • abortion
  • Pro-Choice
  • Pro-Life
  • South Dakota
  • Tweets by RelLibertyTV

    Recent Posts

    • Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

      Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

      January 30, 2023
    • Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

      Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

      January 13, 2023
    • Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

      Analysis of AB 2098 and Its Potential to Suppress Free Speech of Medical Professionals in California

      January 11, 2023
    • Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

      Idaho Supreme Court Denies Petition to Recognize Fundamental Right to Abortion

      January 9, 2023
    • Exploring the Potential Risks of CBDC - Privacy, Freedom and Economy Impacts

      Exploring the Potential Risks of CBDC - Privacy, Freedom and Economy Impacts

      December 29, 2022

    We are not a law firm, do not provide any legal services, legal advice or “lawyer referral services” and do not provide or participate in any legal representation.

    ©2023 ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® | WordPress Theme by Superb Themes
    Manage Cookie Consent
    To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
    Functional Always active
    The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
    Preferences
    The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
    Statistics
    The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
    Marketing
    The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
    Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
    View preferences
    {title} {title} {title}