Roe v. Wade Subject of Concurrent Resolution

By Victoria Wicks
On a day when women gathered at the State Capitol to observe Women 4 Women Day, the South Dakota Senate approved a House Concurrent Resolution by a 23 to 10 vote to urge the Supreme Court to revisit and overturn Roe v. Wade.
Senator Phil Jensen says states should have the right to decide whether abortion is illegal.
“Roe v. Wade violates federalism in as fundamental a way as the abortive act violates the humanity of the unborn,” Jensen tells fellow senators. “When I was asked to bring this issue before the Senate, I thought, ‘Wow. How in the world do you address this issue—the fact that 55 million children are missing today?’”
Jensen’s position is supported by Senator David Omdahl, who says, “I’m prolife. I want to do the work of the people, but I got one person to answer to, and that’s my god.”
Opposition to the resolution is led by Senator Larry Lucas, who notes that South Dakota voters turned down abortion laws in 2006 and 2008 by about 55 percent to 45 percent.
“So it seems to me there’s a huge disconnect from the legislature to what the voters of South Dakota want in regard to this matter,” he says.
Lucas points out that there’s a law on the books, passed in 2005, that makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother in the event the high court gives the issue to the states.
“If we pass this, and the Supreme Court does in fact overturn Roe v. Wade, we’ll have a law that the people of South Dakota are not in favor of,” Lucas says.
In the balcony, Karen Hattervig listens to the discussion. The retired attorney says she agrees with Senator Stan Adelstein, who argues that the legislature overstepped its authority.
“If you took government in high school, you know that there’s a separation of powers,” she says.
Ultimately, Hattervig says the resolution is a symbolic act that has no teeth: “I can’t see the U.S. Supreme Court saying ‘Oh, the South Dakota Legislature just told us to revoke Roe v. Wade, so we’re going to revoke Roe v. Wade.’”
A concurrent resolution just has to pass both chambers, as this one has, and does not need the signature of the Governor.