NEWS: abortion illegal in SD effective 7/1

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-07-2006, 12:50 PM
Cyber Cop

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

They must at this point risk alienating moderate voters. This could turn out good for the Dems if they could sell themselves as more fiscally conservative (shouldn't be that hard to do given recent history) and a little more middle of the road on abortion.

I've lost all hope in the dems. They have been handed Bushes head on a silver platter a few times and always come out looking like the stooge. Kerry and Clinton are not electable, and until the stupid asses in this party figure out that people want someone fresh like Obama, then we'll be stuck with narrow losses to the facist party.:nonono2:
03-07-2006, 12:50 PM
The Dad

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

The republican party has to attempt this stuff now or risk losing their most cohesive base of support (religious conservatives).

Actually, the issue of whether to raise it now has split the RTL movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/national/07abortion.html

Other national anti-abortion groups, though, have quietly disagreed with the timing, pressing instead to cut down on abortions by creating restrictions that may be more palatable to a wider audience, restrictions like parental and spousal notification laws and clinic regulations. If the Supreme Court upholds Roe, they have argued, the damage for those opposed to abortion rights will be grave.

"As much as this isn't the best strategic thing to do, it's there and it's the law of South Dakota now," said Daniel S. McConchie, vice president of Americans United for Life, another group. "We'll defend our position now — which is to oppose abortion."

Cristina Minniti, a spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, said no one from her organization was available to be interviewed on the South Dakota law. Instead, she issued a one paragraph statement which stated, in part: "Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade."
03-07-2006, 12:51 PM
Rontele

Everyone pray for John Paul Stevens.
03-07-2006, 12:51 PM
lemon boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rontele

It is a stupid move because on its face, the bill does not stand a chance. It does not have a rape or incest exception and appears to broad as to be void for vagueness.

This is true only if you are right about the way the court would or would not rule. That is IMVHO not a sure bet right now.
03-07-2006, 12:52 PM
marshalolson

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

That is IMVHO not a sure bet right now.

total agreement.
03-07-2006, 12:53 PM
Rontele

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

This is true only if you are right about the way the court would or would not rule. That is IMVHO not a sure bet right now.

Agreed. But as AlpineDad and I pointed out there are still five votes to uphold Roe. There is the less onerous alternative though of the Court invalidating the statute, however, and sending it back to the state to revise in accordance with the law (whatever this means). They potentially could give guidance to the legislature that there needs to be exceptions in order to survive constitutional muster.

Also the legal rights of Roe are not susceptible to a complete reversal. Stare decisis will ensure that if the Court swings even more conservative that it will take a parallel approach to the Fourth Amendment--a gradual chipping away of the right over the course of a decade.

In the end, if and when Roe is overturned, it will be a state's right issue. So like Blurred said, there will be abortion clinics, liquor stores and fireworks depots on state borders.
03-07-2006, 12:55 PM
lemon boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpinedad

Actually, the issue of whether to raise it now has split the RTL movement.

They may not agree on the strategic timing of this but it is not a deal breaker. The only potential dealbreaker would be continued inaction on the part of the republicans. Any more stalling and you would've seen some big shifts to an action party over a power party.
03-07-2006, 12:55 PM
marshalolson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rontele

Agreed. But as AlpineDad and I pointed out there are still five votes to uphold Roe. There is the less onerous alternative though of the Court invalidating the statute, however, and sending it back to the state to revise in accordance with the law (whatever this means). They potentially could give guidance to the legislature that there needs to be exceptions in order to survive constitutional muster.

what lemon and I are saying is there are AT LEAST 4 going the other way, and a wildcard
03-07-2006, 12:56 PM
MassLiberal

Clinton and kerry, unelectable.

Mark Warner- promising
03-07-2006, 12:57 PM
KillingCokes

The religious fundamentalists in America are no different than the Taliban or Osama Been Forgotten. It comes down to dogmatic-fascism. Our beliefs are superior to yours and now it will be law. Sharia Law American style. It's about making women subservient. Dodson, Robertson and the like want to take this country back to the middle ages. Don't even get me started on the evolution in schools issue. I think since the Right doesn't want science they should be denied health care. Then when 60% of their women die in natural child birth we won't have to deal with them.

I agree that this country is really starting to piss me off. You add the SD law, Stazi like wiretapping, All of The Patriot act, Corporate ownership of Washington and a foreign policy that seems to invite everything that we say we're fighting against. It seems to me like the USA is trying to start Armagedon.
03-07-2006, 12:58 PM
DBdude

In your opinion who's the wild card, Roberts?
03-07-2006, 12:58 PM
marshalolson

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillingCokes

It seems to me like the USA IS STARTING Armagedon.

fixed it for you :redface:
03-07-2006, 12:59 PM
Rontele

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

what lemon and I are saying is there are AT LEAST 4 going the other way, and a wildcard

I wouldn't say that Kennedy is a wild card. The statute at issue in Casey to which Kennedy joined in overturning--contained far more exceptions than SD statute. Also, while it would seem that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia and Thomas, it is not a given considering (although one could make a strong assumption based on Roberts' joining the dissent in Oregon v. Gonzales) that they are going to support abolishing Roe.

You are going to see piecemeal approaches to limiting Roe. First it will be parental or spousal notification and so and so forth. Once the Court decides to roll back Roe, however, it could be a slippery slope until we see an abolishing of abortion.
03-07-2006, 01:02 PM
Lone Star

Quote:

Originally Posted by glademaster

The bill does make health of the mother provisions

If I recall correctly, it makes life of the mother provisions. Not health.
03-07-2006, 01:02 PM
marshalolson

i was under the impression (and correct me if i am wrong... you know WAY more than i do...) that kennedy was a "wrong law" voter in casey
03-07-2006, 01:05 PM
lemon boy

Ron - Faith in the "five" is the equivalent of me going to bed one November evening happy in the knowledge that Al Gore locked up the election by winning Floreeeda.
03-07-2006, 01:05 PM
Dr. Gaper

So who cares if this is what the people of SD want?
03-07-2006, 01:05 PM
Rontele

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshalolson

i was under the impression (and correct me if i am wrong... you know WAY more than i do...) that kennedy was a "wrong law" voter in casey

Kennedy was with the majority in Casey which was a 6-3 decision. The dissenters, not surprisingly, were Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. The issue was much narrower in Casey--parental notification--but I think that it can be dispositive of how Kennedy would vote. Mind you Kennedy also authored the majority's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, so he is definitely not as conservative as Thomas or Scalia.
03-07-2006, 01:14 PM
marshalolson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

So who cares if this is what the people of SD want?

because the implications are greater than 1 state. colorado could easily fall if the law is upheld by the supreme court
03-07-2006, 01:16 PM
Lone Star

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

So who cares if this is what the people of SD want?

Pretty damn good question, Dr. G. We're complaining about the downfall of our great Union, but it appears that the ol' citizens of SD are strongly in favor of the law. As a republic, don't we, as a nation, desire laws that reflect the desires of our people?

What if the desires of our people are wrong or inethical?
03-07-2006, 01:17 PM
Rontele

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemon boy

Ron - Faith in the "five" is the equivalent of me going to bed one November evening happy in the knowledge that Al Gore locked up the election by winning Floreeeda.

If the SD statute was actually reasonable, then I would be worried. But its conditions run so egregious to the Court's case law that I cannot possibly see how five Justices could not reason its unconstitutionality. But I may and very well could be wrong, but I think the destruction of Roe will be piecemeal and not a single overhaul.

Stare decisis does influence how the Court will come out on the issue. Just to what extent, I am not sure.
03-07-2006, 01:19 PM
MassLiberal

Well, if the people of mississippi wanted to reenact jim crowe, it would be okay since it is what they wanted, right?

I mean, it's not like they would be treating a class of people as unequal now, would it? Just seperate........
03-07-2006, 01:21 PM
Rontele

Quote:

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Well, if the people of mississippi wanted to reenact jim crowe, it would be okay since it is what they wanted, right?

I mean, it's not like they would be treating a class of people as unequal now, would it? Just seperate........

Not surprisingly Mississippi also has a statute, similar to SD's, regarding abortion.
03-07-2006, 01:22 PM
glademaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Well, if the people of mississippi wanted to reenact jim crowe, it would be okay since it is what they wanted, right?

I mean, it's not like they would be treating a class of people as unequal now, would it? Just seperate........

Jim Crow laws did treat blacks as unequal, seperate but equal had nothing to do with Jim Crow's, that was the ruling in the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896.
03-07-2006, 01:23 PM
lemon boy

Ron, I think my two main points may have gotten lost on the way:

1. This is meat for the fundies.
2. While I agree that it likely will not stand up to scrutiny (and the bill still has a comittee before it passes which could well muddy the waters), I am by no means positive that it will.

Additionally, what you will likely see is a pipeline of these quite aggressive statutes erected in the near-mid future so that there are on hand a series of laws challenging Roe for the next president's appointment cycle (eg: the bet that it will be a republican). Why persue a death by a thousand cuts if you can just cut out the heart?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page