South Dakota bans nearly all abortions

[Ryan]

So the gov just signed the docs so far and expects it to be held up in court for years before it actually takes effect.

Personally I hope it gets to the Supreme Court an they uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.  What's your view?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

[Jim Gray]

I have mixed feelings.  I believe that a woman should have the right to choose, but I'm not sure if this is a federal issue or a state issue.  Obviously, that's what the Supreme Court challenge will be about.

I won't be surprised if the Court reverses the Roe v. Wade decision and allows each state to decide.  What will be interesting is to see if the same court then steps on state rights when it comes to gun control, assisted suicide, right to die,  medical marijuana, etc.   What has always bothered me about the current administration is that they want it both ways.  They don't really have a political philosophy (i.e. - federalism).  I think their agenda is social/religious, and they will use any political means to acheive the results they desire.

Flame on.......

[Phishfan]

In terms of laws like this I think it is a bit crazy to have no provisions for rape or incest (which is quite often rape). By forcing these pregnant women to carry a baby to full term I feel like that is double punishment.

[Dave Gray]

In terms of laws like this I think it is a bit crazy to have no provisions for rape or incest (which is quite often rape). By forcing these pregnant women to carry a baby to full term I feel like that is double punishment.

What scares me about the rape thing, is that women who get pregnant are going to start coming out and saying that they were raped, when they may not have been.  Even more dangerous, is that women who legitimately were raped, may have more trouble prosecuting, because a defense will say that there is more motive to lie about it.

[Phishfan]

What scares me about the rape thing, is that women who get pregnant are going to start coming out and saying that they were raped, when they may not have been.  Even more dangerous, is that women who legitimately were raped, may have more trouble prosecuting, because a defense will say that there is more motive to lie about it.

This already happens now. In the past month I have seen two seperate cases where a woman has accused men of "gang rape". In both instances video tapes were made. The first one I saw, the woman even made mention of the tape. Once the police viewed the tapes they knew the women had consentual sex with multiple people and then felt remorse. Apparently in the first one (the one where the woman tried to use it as evidence) she was captured on microphone complaining about how small some of the guys were, telling one of them to get off the bed because he couldn't get it up anymore, even answered one of the guys cell phones while he was doing it from behind.

Sorry for the hijack.

[YoFuggedaboutit]

Ask any policition about his stance on abortion and he will shoot you this line:

"I honestly can't make choices for all the women in my community.... but I would never let my own daughter do it"

[run_to_win]

I'm not sure if this is a federal issue or a state issue.  Obviously, that's what the Supreme Court challenge will be about.

I won't be surprised if the Court reverses the Roe v. Wade decision and allows each state to decide. 

THANK YOU!

No matter how many times you say this most pro-choice fanatics will refuse to hear it.

[run_to_win]

In terms of laws like this I think it is a bit crazy to have no provisions for rape or incest (which is quite often rape). By forcing these pregnant women to carry a baby to full term I feel like that is double punishment.

Only 99% of pro-lifers agree with you.  People only bring this up when they're losing an argument.

It's like telling your kid to eat his carrots and having him respond with, "But Dad!  Don't you realize that most people who have ever eaten carrots are now dead!?"

[Spider-Dan]

THANK YOU!

No matter how many times you say this most pro-choice fanatics will refuse to hear it.

What's there to hear?  I'm not in favor of having personal rights decided on a state-by-state basis.

Perhaps we should allow states to decide for themselves whether they want to allow segregation, too?  I'm sure that would have worked out well.

[Phishfan]

Only 99% of pro-lifers agree with you.  People only bring this up when they're losing an argument.

It's like telling your kid to eat his carrots and having him respond with, "But Dad!  Don't you realize that most people who have ever eaten carrots are now dead!?"

What is your point with this? It makes no sense in relation to my statement that the law has no provisions for rape or incest. What does that carrot analogy mean anyway?

[Phishfan]

I won't be surprised if the Court reverses the Roe v. Wade decision and allows each state to decide. 

Actually people are predicting the lower courts are bound by the Supreme Courts' current rulings and this law will be overturned. They are also saying the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case when it comes to them.

[MaineDolFan]

Only 99% of pro-lifers agree with you. People only bring this up when they're losing an argument.

It's like telling your kid to eat his carrots and having him respond with, "But Dad! Don't you realize that most people who have ever eaten carrots are now dead!?"

So what you're saying is that if someone is raped, and that rape winds up with the victim becoming pregnant, that person should be forced to carry that baby to term?

OR - if a 14 year old girl is molested by her older brother, or father, or uncle, and THAT winds up in pregnancy, THAT girl should also be forced to carry that baby to term?

How in the world does that equal your statement about a kid telling his father than everyone that has eaten carrots eventually dies?

[ADeadSmitty]

Actually people are predicting the lower courts are bound by the Supreme Courts' current rulings and this law will be overturned. They are also saying the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case when it comes to them.

I think this is right. This law clearly violates the Supreme Court's established precedent. It'll be tossed out by the lower courts, and since it presents no new issue for the Supreme Court to decide, they won't waste time hearing the case.

EDIT: I mean I think what is really interesting about this story is that it kind of gets to the core of these weird philosophical issues about what the law really is. Even state officials like the governor of South Dakota are under an obligation not to violate federal constitutional rights. The question is what those rights are. Clearly this law violates what the Supreme Court considers to be constitutional rights. But, like a lot of people, Gov. Rounds doesn't think there is a constitutional right to an abortion.

So is there some "real" meaning to the Constitution independent of what the Supreme Court says there is? I'm a moral realist, so I would like to say yes. But as long as the Supreme Court has a monopoly on constitutional interpretation, how can the Constitution mean anything besides what the Court says it does? And if it can't, then Gov. Rounds is just a cynical bastard who purposely fails to abide by his oath of office. Heavy stuff.

[Jim Gray]

What's there to hear? I'm not in favor of having personal rights decided on a state-by-state basis.

Perhaps we should allow states to decide for themselves whether they want to allow segregation, too? I'm sure that would have worked out well.

Actually, prior to Brown versus the Topka Board of Education in 1954, the Supreme Court had ruled other "separate but equal" segregation laws as constitutional.   Having the laws established at the federal level is no guarantee that they will "work out well".   That said, I get your point and understand where you're coming from.

Here are my thoughts.......

We have a constitution that attempts to divide power between the federal govt and state govts.  That's just the reality.  Like Spider-Dan, I can see the attraction of having a uniform set of laws for the country, instead of each state having their own; but at the same time, I can see the value of allowing states to share power and establish unique state laws.  The obvious benefit (and the reason our government was set up under a Federal system) was to provide a division of power, with checks and balances.  An all powerful central Govt was feared.  It was also a practical way to get states to cooperate, recognizing that GA might not want the same thing as NY.

I think the founding fathers got it right.  In addition to limiting the power of the central govt, I believe that there are geographic, political, religious and social differences that make it okay to have opposing laws in two states. 

That said, there are certain "inalienable rights" that every citizen has, and no state laws can take those rights away.  Additionally, there are other "practical rights" where all states must accept federal laws to allow people to freely move from state to state (i.e. - recognizing marriages, ) or regulate activity that has the potential to impact other states (i.e. - pollution regulations, interstate commerce).  I can see the value of allowing states to establish laws in controversial grey areas, where a right isn't covered by the constitution or isn't widely accepted as a personal right.  For example - Mass. has very tough hand gun laws.  I understand why, and think it's the right thing to do. At the same time, I can see why those same laws might not be right for a state like Montana.  I know the systems not perfect, but if you live in Boston and feel you need gun.......move to Bozeman.

This leaves the Supreme Court with the duty of deciding if an activity is an inalienable right, guaranteed by the constitution, and protected by the Federal government or a right that falls under state jurisdiction.   While I believe there will be reluctance to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, I won't be surprised to see it happen.  This is a conservative court, with 6 or the 9 appointed by presidents (Reagan, Bush, Bush II) that ran on an anti abortion platform. Of the 3 remaining justices, 2 were appointed by Clinton, 1 by Ford.  I don't think the court can refuse to hear the case since it's a clear violation of federal law.....maybe I'm wrong.  If the court does decide, I expect a close 4 - 5 or 5 - 4 decision.  While I hope Roe v. Wade is upheld, I don't think it's the end of the world if it isn't.  Let the people decide in each state. 

What you should know - I don't take this position lightly.  I'm probably one of the most liberal members of the board.  I'm pro choice, in favor of legalizing certain recreational drugs, pro assisted suicide, pro gun control, pro-gay marriage, anti war and very, very, very anti-Bush.  I recognize that some states like SD will enact laws that I disagree with.  I'm okay with that (after all, I live in Texas....not the most liberal state).  The alternative - an all powerful central govt - seems far more dangerous.   

[Phishfan]

UK, the Supreme Court can refuse to hear any case they want to and do so all the time. There is no violation in that. People also seem to believe that Bush would need to appoint one more Justice before they could get enough votes to overturn Roe. It's tough to say really because the court has not ruled on any abortion cases in about 5 years.