Perhaps I'm an optimist but the South Dakota law strikes me as a case of winning the battle but losing the war.

First off, how low an opinion of women does the South Dakota legislature have? Do they think women are so unintelligent that being given a paper by a doctor who also tells them "I'm required by law to give you this but you are under no obligation to read it" will sway their minds? That women are so emotionally shallow that they haven't considered the meanings and ramifications of their actions?

It makes one wonder - rather sadly - if we won't see a slight uptick in women suicides in S. Dak. as this goes into effect.

But this law also sets up a dramatic legal setback for the anti-choice side as well. The legislature, in finding that a fetus is:

"a whole, separate, unique, living human being"

Has essentially put the host woman in the role of being in servitude to another human being. And while the legal definition of "person" is important in many of the traditional challenges to abortion regulation, the 13th Amendment requires no such narrow parsing. Whether the servitude is to a corporation, a person, or a "separate living human being", the phrase

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ... shall exist within the United States

Is clear and unambiguous. And the rulings on what defines the involuntary nature of servitude are equally clear. It doesn't matter what commitments you may have made in the past, what contracts you signed, anyone can choose to STOP their servitude the moment it becomes involuntary and the ONLY recourse the other party has to place liens against assets.

So I think perhaps the anti-choice side has over-reached and I suspect that this will be the high-water mark of their decades long drive to control the reproductive organs of some of the USA 's citizens

Wouldn't your reasoning here also legitimize abandoning a born child? If "anyone can choose to STOP their servitude the moment it becomes involuntary and the ONLY recourse the other party has to place liens against assets," then what would prevent someone from stopping his or her servitude to his or her 6 month old daughter, and place liens on said daughters assets? I hope that no judge or legislator would be stupid or evil enough to apply the 'involuntary servitude' ammendment to one's offspring. I hope I'm not engaging in cheap demonizing, but I don't see how the uteral status of the baby affects your reasoning.

Yes, parents can relinquish custody of their children. No one is forced by the state to raise their own children.

I think there's a difference between relinquishing custody and abandonment. Yes, "no one is forced by the state to raise their own children," but there are laws against, say, just not feeding it or just dropping it off in the woods. Parents are legally responsible for their children until someone else is legally responsible. Again, the "involuntary servitude" argument is misguided, because neither prudence nor jurisprudence sees any problem with demanding and expecting some involuntary servitude from a parent.

I must agree with lisaz. No one is forced by the state to raise their own children. And we can see firsthand proof of this everyday- children raised by televisions, and ipods, and cellphones, and myspace, and video games...

Parents no longer parent. Too many parents try too hard to be their kids' friends that they forget, even forfeit, their parental responsibilities. Doubt this? Go to a movie. Go to a restaurant. Go to the supermarket.

Plato says that Socrates accepted the penalty of death for corrupring the young even though he knew the verdict and those who dealt it to be b.s. Why? Because if he violated the b.s. law by escaping, as Crito had arranged, then he'd be an equally b.s. hypocrite, and no matter where he escaped to, he would be making that place worse by subjecting those poor innocent people to a b.s. hypocrite like him.

What's that got to do with parenting in today's world? I'll tell ya... If parents fail to properly parent their children, they are subjecting an innocent society to internal degradation and eventual destruction by vast hordes of undisciplined, misbehaving, self-centered, ignorant, noisy, sloppy, superficial morons. Socrates showed that it is better that a person like that die than be turned loose on an innocent populace. So why shouldn't abortion be legalized beyond the ninth month? Say up until the 18th birthday?

(and no... I'm NOT a pro-lifer trying to make a point with an extreme argument, I am a pro-choicer who would rather choose to abort your ill-behaved spawn than have them ruin another dinner, movie, etc with their bad behavior.)

if a company can lock the doors of its lobby to born human beings who then die of exposure, why would a woman be denied the right to close her womb?

Once she has formally renounced her parental rights and obligations, it is now up to the state to take possession of the fetus ASAP, but without undue burden on the host woman. If the state cannot do so because of technological reasons - then that isn't the host woman's problem.

And no, the state does NOT expect involuntary servitude on the part of parents absent an adjudicated process (child support payments) - and even then it cannot compell the parent to work; at any time a parent can renounce parental obligations and perogatives by just signing a piece of paper.

So the host woman signs the paper, gives the State 24hrs to take possession of the "fetal person" and then shuts down the blood flow to her uterine lining via a medication like RU-486, that operates only on her body and does not cross the placental boundary.

"Yes, "no one is forced by the state to raise their own children," but there are laws against, say, just not feeding it or just dropping it off in the woods. Parents are legally responsible for their children until someone else is legally responsible."

In a 'Safe Haven' state such as mine, a mother at any time may leave her baby safely at a hospital, fire dept or police station without fear of any legal repercussion, except ofcourse that their parental rights are forever terminated. When that law was passed, for all intent and purpose, it legalized safely abandoning one's child to the state.

It has worked remarkably well to date. These children are not neglected, they are found adoptive homes quickly because the mother can't keep changing her mind about her parental rights. This also happens at a younger age, so less damage is done to them.

I wonder if South Dakota has enacted a similar law, if not hopefully they do so soon. My state is also pro-choice, so combined with 'Safe Haven' there is no excuse for unwanted and/or neglected children.

"Once she has formally renounced her parental rights and obligations, it is now up to the state to take possession of the fetus ASAP, but without undue burden on the host woman. If the state cannot do so because of technological reasons - then that isn't the host woman's problem."

The state should have no right whatsoever to force a woman to undergo a 9 month long medical condition that can (and still does in some cases) result in death.

Until the state can safely remove and raise the fetus, and take on all costs and risks involved for the entire life of the child, then the state should stay out of the uterus.

What about "deadbeat dad" laws? Can a father get out of all financial responsibility for a child just by renouncing any parental rights? I don't think so, but I guess I could be wrong.

Kevin Clark

Of course, there are many exceptions to the involuntary servitude laws: military service, jury duty, service during time of emergency, etc.

KevClark64:

What about "deadbeat dad" laws? Can a father get out of all financial responsibility for a child just by renouncing any parental rights? I don't think so, but I guess I could be wrong.

Kevin Clark

yes he can. if he gives up parental rights he's not obligated to the child. just like giving your kid up to the state you have no legal obligations...same deal. the laws you are talking about are the ones where the dad doesn't give up his rights.

"Host woman"?

Seriously? We're not talking about a tapeworm. Who looks at a baby as a parasite?

"And no, the state does NOT expect involuntary servitude on the part of parents absent an adjudicated process (child support payments)"

That's like saying the state does NOT expect me to drive the speed limit absent being pulled over. Adjudicated processes, such as a speeding ticket or forced child support payments, are the state's way of enforcing behavior that it rightly expects and wants to be normal.

"yes he can. if he gives up parental rights he's not obligated to the child. just like giving your kid up to the state you have no legal obligations...same deal. the laws you are talking about are the ones where the dad doesn't give up his rights."

So, let me get this straight. A man can go around impregnating women, and when these women come after him for child support, all he needs to do is renounce fatherly rights and he's off the hook? If that is the case, what would be the point of filing a paternity suit and seeking child support? Even if the aggrieved party won, the father could just renounce rights and not pay up, right?

The "child support" payments are tort rulings"

1. They are the consequence of a due process ruling - an explicit exception in Am 13
2. They cannot compell the "deadbeat dad" to actually work to pay those torts - thus it doesn't violate Am13

If a deadbeat dad decides to work outside the USA, or to work for "in kind" support, then there is nothing that can be done to force him to pay.

that's very different than the government forcing the host woman to be in servitude for 9 months, risk her life and adversely affect her long term health. All WITHOUT any due process.

In YOUR view, its not a "tapeworm" - but lots and lots of women do see the fetus as a parasite. And if you are going to invoke scientific and medical terminology to talk about viability, then you have to take with it the other definitions that come with that body of knowledge. And that makes the fetus biologically a parasite and the woman its host.

AS for your legal reasoning - I think you misunderstand the meanings in the sentances written and even in how law works.

Involuntary Servitude is prohibited absolutely within the United States by the 13th Amendment

A parent that voluntarily supports their child is clearly not engaged in Involuntary Servitude. So that leaves the question of a parent paying child support even though they don't want to. But the 13th Amendment carves out a specific exception to the involuntary servitude clause:

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

IOW only as a consequence of an adjudicated (due process) process.

Now adjudicated processes come from either criminal law or tort law. Speeding is criminal law (or in most jurisdictions administrative law). Court Mandated Child support is tort law.

Neither has anything to do with "normal". It has to do with what the The Constitution allows and what the lege has done with that power.