South Dakota And Abortion
A few days ago "The Gun Toting Liberal" asked why there was such a deafening silence on the right over South Dakota's Senate passing a law outlawing all abortion unless the mothers life was in danger.
He, and a lot of left leaning bloggers had all kinds of theories, including the GOP / right really doesn't want Roe v. Wade overturned. They were wrong, the truth was, the South Dakota House hadn't passed the bill yet. Now that they have, and the Governor has vowed to sign it, the right side of the blogosphere is all over it. Little Miss Chatterbox has her take up on it, as do many others.
Now for my take on it, I don't think the law will hold up to court scrutiny, and I don't think it should. I'm against abortion, don't get me wrong, however the only exception it makes is for life threatening issues. Unless a law includes a rape and incest provision, I think the courts should strike it down. Period.
As I posted a few months ago (here) all the data shows most American's want restrictions placed on abortion, but at the same time only about one in seven want it outlawed completely.
I don't carry the delusion that courts are going to give rapists equal rights as parents in those cases.
In fact, I think any family court judge who did would be run off the bench so fast everyone's head would spin. My concern would simply be the medical and psychological effects on a woman being required to carry that reminder to term.
Chatter about it.
Technorati Tags: Abortion, South Dakota, Courts Planned Parenthood
He, and a lot of left leaning bloggers had all kinds of theories, including the GOP / right really doesn't want Roe v. Wade overturned. They were wrong, the truth was, the South Dakota House hadn't passed the bill yet. Now that they have, and the Governor has vowed to sign it, the right side of the blogosphere is all over it. Little Miss Chatterbox has her take up on it, as do many others.
Now for my take on it, I don't think the law will hold up to court scrutiny, and I don't think it should. I'm against abortion, don't get me wrong, however the only exception it makes is for life threatening issues. Unless a law includes a rape and incest provision, I think the courts should strike it down. Period.
As I posted a few months ago (here) all the data shows most American's want restrictions placed on abortion, but at the same time only about one in seven want it outlawed completely.
I don't carry the delusion that courts are going to give rapists equal rights as parents in those cases.
If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.
In fact, I think any family court judge who did would be run off the bench so fast everyone's head would spin. My concern would simply be the medical and psychological effects on a woman being required to carry that reminder to term.
Chatter about it.
Technorati Tags: Abortion, South Dakota, Courts Planned Parenthood
posted by Crazy Politico at 5:36 AM
17Comments:
One thing to keep in mind a full overturning of Roe at the federal level wouldn't make abortion illegal.
What it would do is throw back to the states the ability to regulate it as they see fit, but who knows what each state would do.
"My concern would simply be the medical and psychological effects on a woman being required to carry that reminder to term."
I never thought about it like that but you've just convinced me that there should be an exception for rape and incest. I always thought adoption could solve that problem but you're right, it could be a nightmare for the woman "to carry that reminder to term."
The stupid thing is South Dakota has the death penalty even though there has not been an execution since 1947. Is Governor Mike Rounds really pro-life or anti-abortion?
I do not think abortion will be banned because the leglislation is too strict. Anti-abortionists must realize if the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade, it can overturn that decision.
While I generally support what SD is doing, I think it is a bit early to really challenge Roe v Wade. A slower pace of change would be politcially better, and probably more effective as well.
As far as rape and incest goes, I agree but I also feel that an extremely young girl (say 10 or 11) should also be allowed to recieve an abortion as they are really too young to handle pregnancy.
corey
There is all the difference in the world between executing a murderer and slaughtering an innocent but unborn child. A murderer, by their very action, has forfeited their right to live. The victim of an abortions only crime is existing.
Patrick, glad I gave you something new to think about.
Corey, I'll have to agree with Shoprat on the Abortion v. Death penalty issue.
Shoprat, I think that with a few exceptions, it should be illegal, and yeah, very young may have to be one of them, though I'm not as convinced, if it' the result of consensual couplings. I'll have to give that some more thought.
CP: I guess I'm not concerned about whether South Dakota's actual law will pass SCOTUS scrutiny or not. This is a step in the right direction. The one article I read said 7 other states were working on legislation as well. I know it will be years but I think it is great that things are happening already.
I don't know if I can agree with you about the rape/incest thing. #1 it is very rare for a woman to become pregnant as a result of rape. But also the psychological damage from an abortion must be greater than carrying the baby and giving it up for an adoption. Being a woman I think that would be the lesser of 2 evils and again it isn't the baby's fault it was conceived through awful circumstances.
I am also concerned that it would be used as the loophole and everyone would be claiming they had been raped in order to get an abortion. Just some thoughts.
Again, Sir... thank you for the link. My blog is undergoing yet another "makeover" at this moment, so I don't know when, but I will reciprocate with your update as soon as it is possible to do so.
What a great discussion! I'll spare y'all from repeating my opinion on the topic since you've read it already, but it's great to see everybody is playing so nicely on such a potentially divisive issue :-)
Blog ON, y'all!
LMC- I do think the conversation in the public is moving in the right way.
I don't know if I can agree with you about the rape/incest thing. #1 it is very rare for a woman to become pregnant as a result of rape. But also the psychological damage from an abortion must be greater than carrying the baby and giving it up for an adoption
That's one I think each individual would have to make a choice on, after some deliberate consultation and thought. In a case like that I'd prefer the law defer to the person.
GTL, I have this strange clientel around here, for some reason they debate issues, not people. I will admit it gets boring sometimes, but it's better than the crap I read in a few other places. Hope all is going well with the "remodeling"
its rediculous and preposterous that anyone would be pro-life. So what if the mother was raped and is pregnant, we all have to deal with crap in our lives. Mothers that get abortions are just lazy. I wrote about this post on my blog if anyone is interested in commenting on me.
I don't really care what South Dakota does. To me the issue is a states right. I find the whole debate on abortion to be irrelavent until such time as the process of legislating on abortion is restored to the states. Then, and only then will it even make sense to debate the rightness or wrongness of its legality.
To answer the original question, the reason most conservatives aren't getting all excited about the SD law is pretty simple. We all anticipate the Supreme Court to invalidate the law in question. As far as I know there are 5 pro-abortion justices, 2 pro-life and 2 who have not voted on the issue yet. Beyond that, we know that won't fix the problem anyway. In 1850 a law could have been passed outlawing slavery. However, as long as people were amoral enough to believe you could own human beings as property the problem would not go away easily. I can only hope that 150 years from now people will look back at us with the same disbelief we do at slave owners. We need to change hearts and minds as much as we need to change laws.
As far as the rape and incest caveat goes, I have no problem with killing a rapist. I have a big problem with killing the child as punishment.
I think you have largebill and me confused.
Elohimus... Went over and read your blog. Was laughing to hard to comment. I'm hoping that all you wrote was in jest.
Fiar.. I think if Roe is overturned we will see some interesting discussions at the state level.
Bill, I think it's actually 4 pro-abortion, 3 anti, and 2 who haven't voted yet, since most of the recent decisions were 5-4, with O'Connor on the 5 end of them and Rehnquist on the other.
As for the rape issue, you are right on "punishing the unborn", but at the same time in some cases you are punishing the victim by making her carry the spawn of the crime to term. In that case who's rights win? It's a tough question.
Shoprat, I fixed it, thanks.
As for the "boring" discussion of the issues found on your blog. I love it. I love reading the common sense that comes out of your head Bob. I love reading what people have to say about the topics you post on. I really loved it when you beat up whats his name for me. *Laughing* And I enjoy discussing an issue on which we disagree (in part) because you are confident enough in your intelligence to discuss it without belittling others. (Unless they REALLY deserve it!) hugs
CP,
My breakdown is as follows,
Roe justices:
Stevens
Ginsberg
Breyer
Souter
Kennedy
Anti-Roe justices:
Scalia
Thomas
New guys:
Alito
Roberts
Which one of the first group do you have in the second? Am I wrong about Kennedy?
Bill
Kennedy has been a little flippy on the issue, but is considered one who will allow a lot of restrictions. He voted against Casey, but it's felt if the laws contain the standard "health concern" loopholes he'll allow them.
South Dakota will be interesting since it does contain the woman's health provision but not rape and incest. I'm not sure if he'll find that a broad enough provision to let it stand.
Isn't it funny, according to Planned Parenthood he and Souter were each going to be the end of legal abortion, and haven't been.
Post a Comment
<< Home