Texas prosecutors haven't had to deal with a penal law on abortion for several decades. Looks like South Dakota prosecutors will be the first to deal with it:

South Dakota Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law

Chet Brokaw
The Associated Press
03-07-2006
�
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.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.
Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it.
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
He declined all media requests for interviews Monday.
About 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota. Planned Parenthood has said other women cross state lines to reach closer clinics.

The first purpose of government is to protect lives and property from criminals and foreign invaders. Western civilization has recognized the importance of protecting the unborn since at least the penning of the Hippocratic Oath, written 500 years before the birth of Christ. The Supreme Court's Roe decision--created out of thin air, and representing nothing more than the personal wishes of the justices who signed on in support of the opinion--has been a social and political disaster.

This subject could get out of control. Be careful Terry, we all want to be one big happy TDCAA family here.

What's the punishment under the new SD law?

Up to five years for the doctor/practitioner.
Nothing I could see for mother.

I didn't see an exemption either. I wonder if the mother could be charged as a party (If South Dakota a version similar to Texas)

I think it's a big problem that there is no exception for rape and incest. Why should a woman be forced to give birth in that kind of situation?

Because it would require snuffing out the life of an innocent third party.

OKAY -- HERE'S THE GROUND RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

IF IT RELATES TO THIS ISSUE AS A CRIME (PENALTIES, PROOF, EVIDENCE, ETC.), IT STAYS.

IF IT RELATES TO THIS ISSUE AS PUBLIC POLICY, THE ENTIRE THING IS BEING DELETED.

This is a forum for the discussion of criminal law issues. Treat it as such. Everyone is free to post their personal feelings about abortion on any of the 10,000,000 other websites that allow public commentary.

Proceed ....

SE

The incest exception can at least be verified. Rape is a point of view. How do you fairly decide when a person is raped and therefore qualifies for the exception?

As prosecutors, we know that rapes occur without guarantee of subsequent conviction. So, you can't say a person is only eligible after the defendant is found guilty. It's also not practical to wait on a court decision, as that would most often take much longer than the term of pregnancy.

The exception must be based on the good faith belief of the M.D. that the client is truthful when claiming the pregnancy is a result of rape. Certainly in very violent circumstances there will be physicial evidence, but in date rape circumstances, there is often nothing to substantiate the claim. So doctors will be required to second guess and doubt their patients?

Sounds like a difficult mess.

It the same issue with doctors deciding whether a condition is "life threatening" too. Which doctor would be making the decision? Would you have to go in front of a board or something before you could be approved for an abortion? Or would we as prosecutors have to just take the doctor's word (the doctor who performed the abortion and is now justifying him or herself) for it? You could always find doctors that disagree with any given diagnosis. Sounds like a big mess to me.

I have been talking to some of our prosecutor friends in SD, and this isn't going to be on their plate anytime soon.

First, this will likely be referred to a petition process, so it won't take effect until November...but 70% of the SD public is against it, so it is likely to crash and burn then.

If it for some reason doesn't go to petition, come July 1 the injunctions will be in place and the thing will head to the Supremes.