"Rounds refused to sign a similar bill two years ago because he said there were technical issues. However, if the bill is written correctly, Rounds said he intends to sign it. The governor has 15 days from Monday to either sign or veto the bill. He said he will probably not take that long.
"If the bill is correctly written than I will seriously consider signing the bill," he said. "It is a direct frontal assault on Roe v. Wade.""
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1661266&page=1
Nobody can know for sure, but it looks and sounds like Rounds will sign this bill.
I'm troubled by this legislation for a couple of reasons. 1. I think it was a collective effort by one party, in one state, to simply challenge the national legal structure....to hell with the women of South Dakota. They introduced the bill right after the nomination of Alito. This is sort of a product of Roe vs. Wade to begin with, taking the issue away from the people, and putting it in the courts. Ideolouges control the issue.
Another thing that pisses me off is that I CANNOT for the life of me find the full language of the bill online, so if any internet P.I.'s can handle that, that'd be super. I have a feeling it lacks any sort of comprehensive support in the state for daycare, womens health clinics, GRADS programs (or whatever they're called in SD), etc.
However, I did learn that an amendment in SD is called something like "hoghounding", or something like that.
Hybrid Mode
