South Dakota has started the ball rolling in the push to outlaw abortion in the US.
(CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.The new law defines life as originating "at the time of conception."
The new law also makes all abortions illegal, unless they threaten the life of the mother.
Although the law -- intended as a constitutional challenge to Roe v. Wade -- is set to take effect July 1, Rounds said in the statement that he expects legal action will prevent that. He added that a settlement of the issue could take years and might ultimately be decided by the nation's highest court."The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible," Rounds said, pointing to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that reversed the 1896 ruling that states could segregate public facilities by race if equal facilities were offered.
The bill "will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion."
They didn't wait very long, did they? Alito's robes have barely been hemmed and it's time to challenge Roe. Does any one else remember the loud denials that abortion was the issue that the conservatives were trying to pack SCOTUS against? We're all against those activist judges, right?
Unless they're denying my right to choose whether or not to have a child, that is.
Posted by Elizabeth Benedetto on March 07, 2006 to Legal matters | TrackBackSouth Dakota has started the ball rolling in the push to outlaw abortion in the US.
No, their pols have started the ball rolling in the push to outlaw abortion in South Dakota. There's a difference.
If they're successful, other (but certainly not all or even most) states will probably pursue new restrictions on abortion.
Unless they're denying my right to choose whether or not to have a child, that is.
Now now, that's another exaggeration as a result of imprecise language. They're trying to deny your right to abort your child once it's in the womb. That's not the same as denying ANY choice about whether to have a child.
Posted by: Kevin Whited on March 7, 2006 9:28 AMSeems strange to do this now. The original Roe decision seemed to allow for some limitations and restrictions but nothing this sweeping.
Still, I don't think this will fly. It may lose by another 5-4 vote. I don't see the moderates, Kennedy and Souter, voting to overturn precedent.
Maybe some people need to take a page out of the Pat Robertson playbook, but spin it into a positive and not a negative -- and pray for the continued health and sound mind of the 85-year-old Justice Stevens. If he leaves the court before a change in the presidency, THAT would set up the mother of all confrontations in the Senate as the next Bush appointee would almost certainly shift the balance on this one issue.
Posted by: Tim on March 7, 2006 9:29 AMI don't think this will work, unless another judge retires or dies soon. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on Roe, and there's no reason to believe he's changed his position since Casey. With Alito, the "partial-birth" abortion ban will likely survive in some form, but the court won't overturn Roe outright.
But maybe it'll backfire. The SD GOP is trying to get out the wingnut vote (as with the gay marriage issue in '04), but I don't think the majority - even in SD - really wants to start throwing doctors in prison again for performing abortions.
No, their pols have started the ball rolling in the push to outlaw abortion in South Dakota.
Get real, Kevin. In the unlikely event Roe is overturned, you know damn well Congress will pass, and Bush will sign, a similar law on the Federal level, just as they did with the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban.
Republicans always say they're for "states' rights," but their record consistently shows otherwise.
Posted by: Mathwiz on March 7, 2006 10:53 AM