Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, October 08, 2006

South Dakota’s Abortion Ban Up For A Vote In November

Here’s something that has gone largely overlooked in all the media furor over the November elections.  What happens to South Dakota’s ban on abortions could well plant the seeds for a fundamental shift in U.S. policy on abortions.

WESSINGTON SPRINGS, S.D. - Circled around a living room, sipping coffee, five long-acquainted couples grappled with their stark differences on a topic they would have skirted in the past but now cannot avoid — abortion.

Like other South Dakotans, people in this tiny farming town are confronting a historic opportunity on Nov. 7. They’ll sway a tortuous national debate by making a choice no statewide electorate has faced before: whether to approve a sweeping ban on virtually all abortions. . . .

The measure would allow abortions only to save a pregnant woman’s life. It makes no exception for other health concerns, or for cases of rape or incest; a doctor performing illegal abortions could face five years in prison.

The Legislature passed the law overwhelmingly in February, expecting it to be challenged in court and perhaps lead to a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Instead of suing, opponents swiftly collected signatures to force a referendum; the law will be scrapped if voters reject it.

I sincerely hope the ban stays in place and results in a legal challenge that gets the abortion issue in front of the Supreme Court once again so that Roe vs. Wade can be overturned.  Whether or not that will happen is still very much in doubt as polls in the state seem to indicate support for and against the ban being pretty even.

But regardless of what happens in South Dakota, I think people need to appreciate the subtext here.  The South Dakota challenge to Roe isn’t about whether or not abortion should be legal, it is about whether or not a state should be allowed to determine the abortion issue for itself.  A common misconception about the Roe decision is that it made abortion legal.  That’s not quite right.  It didn’t so much make abortion legal as it made it unconstitutional for states to make abortion illegal.

That’s an important distinction.  Pro-abortion advocates are fond of saying that women have a “right to an abortion.” That’s just not true as nowhere in the Constitution is abortion even mentioned.  The Roe ruling was based on some strained interpretation of privacy rights in the Constitution, but that just doesn’t make sense.  Abortion bans don’t violate anyone’s privacy, they simply prevent women/parents from killing their unborn children simply because they are unwanted.  A strict reading of the Constitution dictates that abortion be an issue left up to the states via the 10th amendment.

Unless you’re like me, that is, and feel that an unborn child is a human being from the time of conception rather than a clump of cells until some arbitrary point in the pregnancy.  If you feel that way then the 5th amendment provides all the basis you need for declaring abortion unconstitutional:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

But regardless, if some are going to maintain that unborn children aren’t persons for whatever reason we should at least agree that abortion is a state’s rights issue.  Which is why Roe vs. Wade should fall.  Not so much to end abortion, though I would love that outcome, but to allow more states to do what South Dakota is doing: Decide the abortion issue for itself.

That is, after all, why the founding fathers put the 10th amendment in the Constitution.  So that sticky social issues like abortion (and gay marriage, etc.) could be decided in a number of different ways by the various states to the satisfaction of the greatest number of citizens.

Comments

Avatar for ausblog

World estimations of the number of terminations carried out each year is somewhere between 20 and 88 million.

3,500 per day / 1.3 million per year in America alone.

50% of that 1.3 million claimed failed birth control was to blame.

A further 48% had failed to use any birth control at all.

And 2% had medical reasons.

That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

ausblog on October 8, 2006 at 04:00 pm
Avatar for Dave

That means a stagering 98% may have been avoided had an effective birth control been used.

So if those 98% had killed their unborn child via birth control, they never would have killed it via abortion. It’s a travesty!

Dave on October 8, 2006 at 04:46 pm
Avatar for jpe

Re: the 5th amendment: see the originalist opinion Roe for why the 5th is inapplicable to fetuses.

jpe on October 8, 2006 at 05:01 pm

jpe, because they said so?  Great reasoning.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 8, 2006 at 05:22 pm
Avatar for jpe

Whistler, Roe provides a compelling originalist argument for the inapplicability of the 5th to fetuses.  If you’re an originalist, you simply can’t claim that the 5th protects the life of fetuses, because abortion in the first trimester wasn’t criminal.

jpe on October 8, 2006 at 07:04 pm
Rob
Rob
17408 comments
Send a private message

If you’re an originalist, you simply can’t claim that the 5th protects the life of fetuses, because abortion in the first trimester wasn’t criminal.

But who decided that abortion in the first trimester isn’t a crime?

Life begins conception.  Trying to draw a line after some point in the unborn child’s development in the womb to say that life begins at that point is as arbitrary and dumb as drawing the same line between when the baby crawls and when the baby walks.  It’s all the same life, just different stages of development.

The Roe ruling was a joke.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 8, 2006 at 07:11 pm
Avatar for ausblog

At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existance. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.

ausblog on October 8, 2006 at 07:27 pm
Avatar for ausblog

Something for Pro-choicers to concider.....

I am a pro-lifer who has no religious convictions at all . I didn’t need the fear of god or anything else to come to my decision, just a good sense of what is right and wrong.
You see we were all once a fetus.  Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate?  Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories.  In this day and age with terminations being so readily available and so many being carried out, if you make it to full term
you can consider yourself lucky.  Lucky you had a mother that made the choice of life for you. Don’t you think they all deserve the same basic human right, LIFE?
I’m all for contraception, prevention is certainly better than termination.
Did you know you can get an implant that is safe, 99.9% effective, and lasts for three years? Just think girls not even a show for three years, wouldn’t that be great? I think too many people rely too heavily on the last option (abortion), I think if abortions weren’t so readily available people would manage their reproductive system far better resulting in a fraction of the number of unwanted pregnancies.
World wide there are over 50 MILLION aborted pregnancies each year. In America 3,500 terminations carried out every day, that’s over 1.3 million every year, 50% of all cases claimed that birth control had been used, 48% admitted they took no precaution, and 2% had a medical reason. That’s a staggering 98% that may have been prevented had an effective birth control been used. Don’t get me wrong, I suspect the percentages in Australia would be much the same.
Just a lot of unnecessary killing.

At the point of conception is when life began for you. This was the start of your existence. Your own personal big bang. Three weeks after conception heart started to beat. First brain waves recorded at six weeks after conception. Seen sucking thumb at seven weeks after conception.

I am convinced that in the not too distant future, people will look back at many of the practices of today with disbelief and horror.

Want to know how to find humanity-?

True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.

Until we do we are no more than an uncivilisation, with all the uncivilised things that we do…

ausblog on October 8, 2006 at 07:31 pm

Abortion isn’t primarily a religious issue; it’s a human issue.  Killing babies isn’t the solution to anything, and creates many more problems than it may solve, even for the irresponsible people who practice it.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 8, 2006 at 07:47 pm

Rob: That whole “originalist” meme centers around one word: “person”.  The pro-abortionists claim that the human fetus isn’t a “person”.  What is it, a cocker spaniel?  It’s a person.  I doubt the Founders considered a human fetus as anything other than human, and so when they said “person”, they meant us all; all the humans.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 8, 2006 at 07:52 pm
Avatar for jpe

But who decided that abortion in the first trimester isn’t a crime?

This is originalism 101: if fetuses were considered people at the time that the 5th (or the 14th) was ratified, then abortion would’ve been illegal, or at least there would have been the kind of outcry we see today to criminalize it.  The fact that abortions weren’t criminal for first trimester abortions and were either legal or misdemeanors after that means that those that drafted and passed the 5th amendment couldn’t have meant to cover fetuses by the bill of rights.

This is basic, basic originalism.

jpe on October 9, 2006 at 04:40 am

jpe: The medical reality at the time the Constitution was written is that for the first trimester, spontaneous(natural) abortion occurred regularly, due to the relatively primitive prenatal care available at the time.  It was felt that a prohibition on abortion might unintentionally criminalize spontaneous abortions.  The human fetus is still a person; it’s still human.  That was a medical exception, not a constitutional one.  Like most pro-abortionists, you call it a “fetus”, instead of a “human fetus”, in order to deny its humanity and personhood.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 9, 2006 at 08:05 am
Avatar for Dave

Ausblog writes:

Is it beyond the realm of possibilities that when your mother first learned she was carrying you, she may have considered her options? What if she had decided to terminate?  Would that have been OK?
You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories.

Later s/he writes:

I’m all for contraception, prevention is certainly better than termination.

Ausblog, how could you? What if your father had decided to wear a condom that night you were created 14 (tee hee!) years ago? Would that have been OK? You would not exist, if you have children they would not exist, and your (husband or wife) would be married to someone else. You would have been deprived of all your experiences and memories.

How can you support contraception? You’re a monster!

True humanity can only be achieved, by concidering others/ caring about others, as much as, if not more than yourself.

You said something like 50 million abortions are performed a year in the US. Well, 27 BILLION non-human animals are killed every year--about a thousand per second. Since “true humanity can only be achieved by considering others (...)as much as yourself”, what have you done to stop this slaughter?

Wait, let me guess: nothing. Because you don’t even follow your own definition of “humanity.”

Dave on October 9, 2006 at 09:31 am
Avatar for Dave

According to the latest polls, it’s a statistical dead head for passage.

Dave on October 10, 2006 at 07:09 am
Avatar for ausblog

Dave,

Does wanting to prevent the slaughter of inocent, defenceless make me a monster? I can’t understand your reasoning.

I said between 20 and 88 million WORLDWIDE.

1.3 million per year / 3,500 per day in the US.

I love roast lamb, but did you know that in some parts of the world they actually eat babies.

BARBERIANS.

ausblog on October 10, 2006 at 07:13 pm
Avatar for Dave

Does wanting to prevent the slaughter of inocent, defenceless make me a monster?

You don’t want to prevent the slaughter of “inocent, defenceless” (no noun), and you say so yourself, as you support slaughtering animals.

Furthermore, you also support contraception, an act that, just like abortion, prevents children from being born.

did you know that in some parts of the world they actually eat babies.

Assuming the babies died naturally, what’s wrong with that?
Dave on October 10, 2006 at 07:49 pm
Avatar for ausblog

Dave , Birth control,
Maybe they should call them - conception control ,
you know the ones that prevent conception or ovulation.

Look I don’t know too much about the animals you speak of
but this one is close to me. Don’t ask me to elaborate.

I leave a comment for you to concider, nothing more than that. If you don’t get it, that’s fine.

Take care

ausblog on October 11, 2006 at 03:06 am
Avatar for ausblog

Bill Clinton once said that abortions should be available , safe and RARE.  He is a very wise man.

I’d like to see an ultrasound in every clinnic to provide a more informed choice,
before going through with something they may regret.

I’d also like to see effective birth control made available to all who can’t afford it.

ausblog on October 16, 2006 at 04:20 pm
Avatar for ausblog

Have you seen ( HOT OFF THE SHOW! Throw-away babies )
a blog by Sharon Hughes?

ausblog on October 17, 2006 at 04:48 pm
Avatar for ausblog

If you think the point of conception is NOT when life begins, and all you have is a clump of cells and not a living human being.
Then at least concider this -

Soon after you were conceived you were no more than a clump of cells.
This clump of cells was you at your earliest stage, you had plenty of growing to do but this clump of cells was you none the less. Think about it.
Aren’t you glad you were left unhindered to develope further.
Safe inside your mother’s womb until you were born.

ausblog on November 23, 2006 at 06:56 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.