NEWS: abortion illegal in SD effective 7/1

**marshalolson** · 03-07-2006, 12:20 PM

read more HERE

curious this is going down so closely to Bush's 2 supreme court appointees...

I don't know what to say, really, other than my desire to remain a US citizen is falling @ a weekly rate it seems...

**truth** · 03-07-2006, 12:21 PM

Pretty fuct up.

**Blurred** · 03-07-2006, 12:23 PM

So people wanting an abortion will drive to a neighboring state. Yay. We should set up clinics on the border right next to the liquor stores and fireworks stands.

**MassLiberal** · 03-07-2006, 12:23 PM

It won't go into effect though, it will be held up waiting for appeal, and eventually. it will come to the supreme court ruling as to whether i will remain law.

**marshalolson** · 03-07-2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

So people wanting an abortion will drive to a neighboring state. Yay.

and it will be challenged in the supreme court, and who knows how they will rule.

my faith in the supreme court is at an all-time low

**72Twenty** · 03-07-2006, 12:24 PM

Fuck.

fuck fuck fuck.

and I'm listening to Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin'" right now.

**Blurred** · 03-07-2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by marshalolson

and it will be challenged in the supreme court, and who knows how they will rule.

my faith in the supreme court is at an all-time low

Well that's ok, cause I hear Alito is pretty liberal on abortion.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-07-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by 72Twenty

Fuck.

fuck fuck fuck.

Better use these then:

**Rontele** · 03-07-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by marshalolson

and it will be challenged in the supreme court, and who knows how they will rule.

my faith in the supreme court is at an all-time low

Don't worry...yet. The conservatives only have four votes (assuming that Alito and Roberts join Thomas and Scalia on the issue). Anthony Kennedy voted with the majority in Casey which reaffirmed Roe.

IMO, I think this is plain retarded by the conservatives to do this in an election year. They do not have the majority to overrule Roe and the SD bill is so draconian that they are not going to convince Kennedy to change sides.

What it does do is make this an election year issue. It also splinters the GOP as not everyone in that party supports the outright ban on abortions.

Edit to add: I also think that C.J. Roberts may surprise many folks with his jurisprudence. Granted he is a Catholic and that is worrisome on the abortion issue, but during his confirmation hearings, he repeatedly stated that there are certain cases (I believe that he was alluding to Roe) as superprecedent--as the Court has taken the occassion more than once to reaffirm the principle in subsequent case law.

**Greydon Clark** · 03-07-2006, 12:29 PM

Why aren’t these religious extremist being beaten with rubber hoses in Gitmo? If extraordinary rendition was every justified…

**Lurch** · 03-07-2006, 12:30 PM

It's going to be a year before we even find out if the Supreme Court will even hear the case. This is going to be a long and ugly fight. I don't see any way this can have a good out come for conservatives in the long run, they are shooting them self in the foot.

**Rontele** · 03-07-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Lurch

It's going to be a year before we even find out if the Supreme Court will even hear the case. This is going to be a long and ugly fight. I don't see any way this can have a good out come for conservatives in the long run, they are shooting them self in the foot.

It could be as soon as the October term. Planned Parenthood will most likely seek an injunction in federal district court. Given that Roe is controlling law, the district court will grant the injunction. It then goes to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (perhaps as early as this summer), with eventual disposition, most likely, by the Supreme Court in the following two terms.

**DBdude** · 03-07-2006, 12:34 PM

This is all about taking choices away from women who don't have many choices. Any women with access to money will be able to get an abortion no matter what the laws are.

**Spats** · 03-07-2006, 12:38 PM

"I brought up one of my favorite forced birth conundrums the other day, guaranteed to make wingnut "life begins at conception" heads explode. If a fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you can only save a petri dish with five blastulae or a two-year old child, which do you save?"

There is audio.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/06.html#a7413

**Long duc dong** · 03-07-2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Why aren’t these religious extremist being beaten with rubber hoses in Gitmo? If extraordinary rendition was every justified…

That might be the best idea I have ever heard.

**Dr. Gaper** · 03-07-2006, 12:40 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but was this voted for by the SD people?

**Lone Star** · 03-07-2006, 12:41 PM

about time a lawmaking body stood up for what's right in this country, too bad it's only South Dakota. the stink of it is that with the law being all-encompassing (ie doesn't make provisions for health of mother, rape, incest, etc) , it has no chance at being upheld by the courts. Roe will continue to live on.

**Rontele** · 03-07-2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Gaper

Excuse my ignorance, but was this voted for by the SD people?

Indirectly. It was not by referendum, but by their elected officials.

**lemon boy** · 03-07-2006, 12:43 PM

The republican party has to attempt this stuff now or risk losing their most cohesive base of support (religious conservatives). They are through their supreme court battles (couldn't touch this fight off before the appointments) and the fundies are starting to clamour for some "beef." It is a major sore spot that the number one uniting principal for them has not seen more progress with an ostensibly anti-abortion Prez, house, senate plus governors etc...etc..etc...

As a general rule right now republicans can flat not get elected unless they have the devoted support of the fundies, making moves on abortion is the only way to mollify them. 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.

**Rontele** · 03-07-2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Lone Star

about time a lawmaking body stood up for what's right in this country, too bad it's only South Dakota. the stink of it is that with the law being all-encompassing (ie doesn't make provisions for health of mother, rape, incest, etc) , it has no chance at being upheld by the courts. Roe will continue to live on.

The problem is that Roe is a terribly reasoned decision. This makes it susceptible to attack from both liberals and conservatives. In the end, however, this must be balanced against the liberty afforded to the individual to determine whether or not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. It is petrifying to think that the government should intervene and tell a woman what do regarding a child she may not want.

**Dr. Gaper** · 03-07-2006, 12:46 PM

Well if states like SD can allow this, then states like California can allow gay marriage, right?

**KillingCokes** · 03-07-2006, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Well that's ok, cause I hear Alito is pretty liberal on abortion.

YEAH THEY SAID IT ON FOXNEWS SO IT MUST BE TRUE

**Rontele** · 03-07-2006, 12:48 PM

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). They are through their supreme court battles (couldn't touch this fight off before the appointments) and the fundies are starting to clamour for some "beef." It is a major sore spot that the number one uniting principal for them has not seen more progress with an ostensibly anti-abortion Prez, house, senate plus governors etc...etc..etc...

As a general rule right now republicans can flat not get elected unless they have the devoted support of the fundies, making moves on abortion is the only way to mollify them. 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 agree that the GOP may feel compelled to mollify the base of the religious right, but I am sure that only 10% of the population wants abortions controls on par with the statute just passed in SD. 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. Should be interesting...

**glademaster** · 03-07-2006, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Lone Star

(ie doesn't make provisions for health of mother, rape, incest, etc) , it has no chance at being upheld by the courts. Roe will continue to live on.

The bill does make health of the mother provisions, but none for rape and incest. Laws like that and the people that support them scare the living shit out of me. America has transitioned from a nation of "rugged individualists" who want as much control as possible over their own lives to a nation of fundamentalist sheep. Former members of the Moral Majority and other nutjobs must have creamed their shorts when they heard this. [shudder]

If I were a lawyer, I'd be more than willing to donate my time to help Planned Parenthood litigate against laws like this.

With that being said, I have little faith that this will be overturned on a state level, and I fully believe that by Roe will be overturned within the next decade.