Well, this is bad
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.
I think abortion is a disgusting, hideous and deplorable practice. But the only way to make it worse is to criminalize it. But the law isn’t really a law:
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.
So, can you really pass laws pending approval? Or is this merely a ploy to challenge Roe?
March 6th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
We all know how well those prohibition laws work.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Please this was always a ploy to challenge Roe.
No allowance for the life of the mother. (eliminating self-defense… a parent can kill its child in self-defense, even if that child isn’t born.)
No allowance for rape… first the woman is victimized, then if she becomes pregnant is victimized for another 9 months – putting her life at risk…etc. Typical “patriarchic” move. Don’t think this is an issue? Look up your history on the rape camps in the Balkan war… Bosna/Croatia/etc. All part of ethnic cleansing.
No allowance for incest… see rape.
This law doesn’t meet any of the terms set down over the years by the court. It exists for one reason – to overturn Roe – or to try.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Deb, I’m aware of that. I think it should just be highlighted as such.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Yes. I doubt that the law specifically says that it won’t take effect unless/until Roe is overturned, but everyone knows that’s the case anyway. What I want to know is what legal eagle told all these conservative legislators that the current Supreme Court was in any danger of overturning Roe.
March 6th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
It’s just a ploy, and a poorly-thought-out one at that.
Which makes me theorize that it actually is the product of a bunch of red-state legislators playing a game of legislative chicken where they try to “out-life” each other.
March 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
I agree, it’s just a ploy to get it before the SCOTUS.
ZD, it does contain an exemption for life of the mother. Just not rape or incest.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Is this at any stage in the pregnancy? Roe vs. Wade, itself, allowed a lot of regulation in the final trimester, maybe even this much. It’s the decisions following Roe that seem to follow a rule of “no limits at any time” – but I’m sure there are at least 4 Justices that would like to roll that back. Nor I can I think of any good reason that an adult rape victim would wait six months to have an abortion, and damn few reasons for any other woman. (There are some extremely icky family scenarios where I’d think we’d have to allow late period abortions for minors.)
OTOH, if it bans abortions at earlier stages, it won’t reach the Supreme Court. The federal District Court will overturn it, the nearest appeals panel will uphold, and the Supremes will refuse to look at the case. I doubt Roberts and Alito are ready to open that can of worms yet, and even if they do I wouldn’t at all be surprised if one or two other conservatives chickened out, so they’ll simply avoid having to go on the record about it for now.