Its beginning...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I vastly prefer a clean clinic existing, as opposed to women buying coathangers and shit, or going to some croaker where they'll get hepatitis, tetanus, or worse.

 

The closest parallel I can find is drug prohibition in the sense that people are going to get "it" whether it's legal or not.

 

In terms of a medical procedure, it's better that an abortion be performed by a doctor as opposed to cousin D-Loc in an alley, or some filthy shack on the mexican border by a former doctor who lost his license in the states.

[SuperJerk 0]

South Dakota bans most abortions

In signing law, governor says he expects court challenges

 

(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."

 

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," said a statement released by Rounds, a Republican.

 

"The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

 

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. (FindLaw: Text of billexternal link)

 

"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."

 

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as well as its chapter that covers Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, has said it plans to fight the legislation in court.

 

The national group said 10 states are considering similar bills.

 

"These abortion bans, and the politicians supporting them, are far outside the mainstream of America," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a written statement.

 

"Planned Parenthood will fight these attacks in court, in the state houses, and at the ballot boxes, to ensure that women, with their doctors and families, continue to be able to make personal health care decisions without government interference."

 

The bill signed by Rounds allows doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, but even then encourages them to exercise "reasonable medical efforts" to both save mothers and continue pregnancies.

 

Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance -- even in a case of rape or incest -- can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.

 

In his statement, however, Rounds pointed out that the bill does not prohibit doctors from prescribing contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in a rape or incest case.

 

State lawmakers had rejected proposed amendments that would have made exceptions for rape or incest.

 

"We must help each mother to see the value of the gift that is a child, and nurture the mother for her own sake and for the sake of her child," Rounds said in the statement.

'Completely contradictory' to Roe

 

The passage of the bill comes at a time many abortion rights opponents feel is right for a direct challenge of Roe v. Wade, coming on the heels of two Bush appointees -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- to the high court. (Full story)

 

"This is potentially an earthquake, because there is no doubt that this law conflicts with Roe v. Wade," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said earlier. "It is completely contradictory to what the current law on abortion is."

 

The Supreme Court has not accepted a direct challenge to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Most appeals the court has heard since then have dealt with more limited legal questions, such as government funding of the procedure, waiting periods, parental and spousal notification, and abortions late in pregnancy.

 

In January, the justices issued a ruling on parental notification but sidestepped the sort of definitive ruling that many activists on both sides of the issue had hoped for.

 

In a unanimous but narrow opinion written by now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the high court concluded that a federal appeals panel went too far by blocking enforcement of a New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify their parents before receiving an abortion.

 

The case was thrown back for reconsideration, essentially delaying a final word on the matter.

 

The ruling from the high court thus bypassed the larger question of whether such laws are an unconstitutional "burden" on a woman's access to the procedure.

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

[Guest InuYasha]

Okay, quick question: How legal is it for a state/local gov't to circumvent a national law with the expressed purpose of casuing it to be challenged in court? Last time I checked, that was usually referred to as being an asshat. This serves no other purpose than to force the new Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to do exactly what they've wanted to do: make a summary judgement on the Constitutionality of Abortion, aka, Free Choice.

 

I'm a firm believer in the theory of Free Will. God may be omniscient, and all knowing, but that doesn't automatically cement the theory of Predetermination. As we're being to understand to workings of quantum mechanics, I think what we are really being to grasp; in the crudest possible fashion, is God's omniscience. Quantum Mechanics states that all realities are possible, but that it's our actions that affect our reality. So, God would be aware of all the possiblities of quantum mechanics, but we are only aware of the one strand we are on.

[NoCalMike 0]

The thing that bothers me about this is, we have already lived in a country where abortion was illegal, and we all know from history, it didn't stop a woman from getting an abortion if she really wanted one. All making it a criminal act did was make it result in infection, sickeness and in some cases death.

 

Someone compared this with Drugs and I agree. People have access to these whether legal or illegal, but when they are illegal it makes the entire situation that much more fucked up and difficult to deal with. Making abortion illegal isn't going to "save the unborn" if anything it will make the abortion procedure more gruesome and dangerous.

[Art Sandusky 0]

But it's an immediate, short-term solution to something that was bugging them. In the end, isn't that what this end of the political spectrum generally goes for?

[MrRant 0]

I think anyone with a majority goes for the short term solution. I doubt anyone sits there and says "We have the votes to push this through, but.. let's listen to the other side and really consider their thoughts."

[Art Sandusky 0]

Real, substantial solutions to problems don't even require listening to the other side. They simply require wanting to actually solve a problem instead of a band-aid for it.

 

Of course, this would be an issue on which one side's solution is completely against the other's.

[MrRant 0]

Eh, this is their idea of SOLVING the problem. It requires listening to another side to see what other options there may be.

 

Again, why listen if you don't have to? I don't agree with it as I'm pro-choice though I am against using abortion as a method of birth control and later term abortions unless there is good reason for it.

[Perfxion 0]

Here is what the court will do:

 

Since Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v Wade ARE the laws of the land on the issue of abortion. The Undue burden of this law gets struck down and they move on from the issue without really touching the issue. This court will not fuck with Roe....yet.