South Dakota Bans Abortions, Will Take On Roe
Fantastic...
It is clear to any frequent reader of this site that I am staunchly against abortion. My opposition has very little to do with any concern of women's health or privacy issues and a whole lot to do with concern over unborn children being killed in a procedure that far too many see as nothing more than a complicated sort of contraceptive. But all that being said, this challenge to Roe vs. Wade actually has very little to do with abortions.
This is not a battle over the "right" to choose, this is a battle over a state's right to define the legality of something that is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. The Roe ruling made abortions legal by declaring that any law banning them was unconstitutional because it violates a mother's right to privacy, something that makes absolutely no sense at all. Our government already limits the sort of drugs doctors can prescribe to patients. No doctor in this country can write a script for heroin, for instance, or cocaine. Our government also outlaws other sorts of medical procedures. Female genital mutilation, or female "circumcision," is a practice banned here in the U.S., for good and obvious reasons.
Does a government ban on female genital mutilation violate the privacy of those who would seek it? Absolutely not. Nor does a ban on abortions violate the privacy of those seeking that procedure.
Roe needs to be overturned, not so that all abortions will be illegal (they will very likely remain legal in many parts of the U.S. even if Roe should be overturned) but so that the people of states like South Dakota can exercise the sovereignty granted their state by the Constitution.
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.
The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.
"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.
State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.
"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.
"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.
Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.
The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice
Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
It is clear to any frequent reader of this site that I am staunchly against abortion. My opposition has very little to do with any concern of women's health or privacy issues and a whole lot to do with concern over unborn children being killed in a procedure that far too many see as nothing more than a complicated sort of contraceptive. But all that being said, this challenge to Roe vs. Wade actually has very little to do with abortions.
This is not a battle over the "right" to choose, this is a battle over a state's right to define the legality of something that is not specifically addressed in the Constitution. The Roe ruling made abortions legal by declaring that any law banning them was unconstitutional because it violates a mother's right to privacy, something that makes absolutely no sense at all. Our government already limits the sort of drugs doctors can prescribe to patients. No doctor in this country can write a script for heroin, for instance, or cocaine. Our government also outlaws other sorts of medical procedures. Female genital mutilation, or female "circumcision," is a practice banned here in the U.S., for good and obvious reasons.
Does a government ban on female genital mutilation violate the privacy of those who would seek it? Absolutely not. Nor does a ban on abortions violate the privacy of those seeking that procedure.
Roe needs to be overturned, not so that all abortions will be illegal (they will very likely remain legal in many parts of the U.S. even if Roe should be overturned) but so that the people of states like South Dakota can exercise the sovereignty granted their state by the Constitution.
