Here's the story:

Link



Obviously this is intended to test the new, more conservative Supreme Court to see if it will topple Roe v Wade.

To be debated:

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

The court should rule that the people of the state of South Dakota, via their elected representatives, have the right to pass that law.

The faulty reasoning behind "Roe vs. Wade" and the bogus "Right to Privacy" should be overturned by the USSC.

There is nothing in the 14th amendment that grants a woman an unlimited right to kill her own fetus simply because she wants to. It isn't an issue of "privacy" which is a faulty premise in the first place. One does not have the "right" to break the law if it's done in "privacy". One doesn't have the right to take drugs, abuse a child, download kiddy porn, or torture small animals if the criminal acts are done in "private".

The debate among our society with respect to this issue is long overdue. Rather than a full debate about the morality of this issue and where the lines should be drawn, the liberal activist court decided to short-circuit the entire democratic process and just decide for all of us. That was wrong.

What I suspect will happen is that a few states like SD, UT, AL and the like may pass some very restrictive abortion laws but then there will be a backlash as more states such as CA, NY, MA, MN, and WI pass almost unrestricted pro-abortion laws.

Then, the federal government will step in to pass laws that will supersede state laws in order to create standard guidelines for all Americans. They will do so via the elected representatives of the people and when that happens, abortion will be legal but restricted since that's where the majority of the people are in 2006.

Our society, via our representatives, has every right to define "morality" and they do so each and every day via legislation. The noise over "choice" is just noise. We don't have a "choice" to steal, murder, rape, or plot terrorist acts. The line between moral/immoral, legal/illegal is something that every society that is based on the rule of law must do. And those lines should be created by the branches of government that were created to define those lines; the legislative and executive branches. The role of the judiciary is to decide if the lines are drawn in accordance with the constitution and the US constitution, with respect to abortion, is completely and totally silent.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule?

It is my belief, that a human organisms life does not matter until it has left the womb. Being an Atheist, for me all morals must come from within, and the above is just what I feel like believing. I can easily respect people who disagree with me however, as I acknowledge that my argument has no inherent superiority over anyone elses. Its simply a matter of difference of opinion, on basic axioms.

How will it rule?'

Roe Versuses Wade will probably be upheld, assuming the courts liberals have pro-choice sentiments. The courts have gone from having 7 liberals and 2 conservatives, to having 5 liberals and 4 conservatives. Liberals therefore still control the court. The change in balance however, might possibly make decisions more moderate or swingy, as it will now take only one liberal dissident to disrupt the liberal majority. Similarly, it would take only 1 conservative dissident to cancel that out, but anyways...

Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

A court case upholding Roe Versus Wade would strengthen precedent, but a decision against it, would destroy it.

There are other people who believe what you believe. And, there are many more who have viewed ultrasounds of their babies inside their wombs, miscarried late in gestation, or who lost their fetuses in accidents who would adamantly disagree with you.

But, that's why we have a representative democratic system. We get to either vote on these questions to decide them or elect representatives to vote on behalf of us.

As an atheist also, I don't buy your contention that all morals must come from within. Within what? Each individual? Are you suggesting that what is right and wrong from society's perspective should be done on an INDIVIDUAL basis?

If one takes your train of thought and runs with it, it destroys our entire concept of the rule of law. If morality is an individual issue, then society, as a whole, has no business instituting laws that define morality. Under that way of thinking, all behavior would be allowable if the individual committing that behavior thought he or she was "righteous".

That cannot work.

But, what I suspect you mean, with respect to "morality", is a very narrow interpretation based on issues related to sex, drugs, and rock & roll as I like to put it. Abortion, since it is the result of irresponsible sex in almost every case, is one of those "morality" issues.

I think it's more accurate to realize that ALL laws and all rules, constraints, and other forms of limits on behavior reflect "morality". Abortion is not off limits any more than theft, rape, or homicide are. Not only does our society have the right to define those limits (as long as they are within the bounds of the intent of the constitution), but our society has the DUTY to define, and then enforce those limits.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?
The court will respect the stare decisis in the matter, Roe vs. Wade, and reject the constitutionality of the legislation with all due haste. This one shouldn't even be close.

I will be curious to see the vote, however. It will be a good first litmus test for the Roberts' court and its newest initiate, the honorable Samuel Alito. I hope my faith in their respect for precedent isn't misplaced.

While stare serves a purpose in holding down case volume, it's not always a good thing. I'm glad the justices didn't give Plessy too much weight in Brown vs Board, as everyone should be.

The controlling factor is supposed to be "is it Constitutional". Anything more and the Court is infringing on the Legislative Branch as LH so eloquently pointed out.

South Dakota has one abortion clinic in the entire state. It performs over 800 abortions a year. The doctors come over from Minnesota to perform the abortions.

This isn't a bill. It's a stunt. If it happens to kill a few women in the process, what does that matter to the overwhelmingly male members of the South Dakota legislature? They just want to go down in history as the first state to jump into the Way Back Machine and take women back to the Bad Old Days.

The risk of death associated with childbirth is eleven times greater than the risk of death from an abortion. When abortions are illegal that won't stop abortions from being performed. It just means women will once again have to go underground to get them.

Not that it means anything to the fine men and women of the South Dakota legislature.

The Court should uphold Roe vs. Wade as settled law. The states are free to place limits on abortion, but to eliminate it entirely even for rape, incest and the life of the mother is at risk is a position only a extremist could approve of. How is it respectful of life to force women to become breed mares bringing unloved and unwanted children into the world?

Women should be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions and not meddling politicians or religious zealots.

If Anthony Kennedy maintains his status as a swing vote, whether or not the South Dakota law survives constitutional scrutiny will likely be up to him. Under the present make-up of the Supreme Court the likely votes to uphold would be Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas with Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter voting to strike it down.

Eventually, there will either be a case or another Supreme Court justice elevated that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. This will probably result in abortion being left up to the states to decide with some states approving or banning the procedure.

Either way, it's time for those who support a woman's right to choose to defend the principle because it is under a serious assault. The consequences of losing this fight are grave.

Versus the assured infanticide of 800 babies?

The risk of death associated with childbirth is eleven times greater than the risk of death from an abortion.
Last I checked, the risk to the baby in an abortion quite nearly 100%

How is it respectful of life to force women to become breed mares bringing unloved and unwanted children into the world?

And how difficult is it to keep one's legs crossed? Free-willed peoples make decisions every day, many have consequences. This particular one involves the creation of a human life. One needs to evaluate the consequences as part of the decision process, don't they?



Eventually, there will either be a case or another Supreme Court justice elevated that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. This will probably result in abortion being left up to the states to decide with some states approving or banning the procedure.

As it very well should be. That why we elect folks to pass laws to regulate things. We don't elect justices.

The reason they will uphold stare in this case is that Griswold is the foundation for Roe. In order to reject Roe, they would first have to reject Griswold. That is highly unlikely to happen, in my opinion.

To be debated:

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule?
Wellll, if we go by the written Constitution, rather than "penumbras and emanations", the court should uphold the law. Then, when another state passes laws specifically authorizing unrestricted abortion while criminalizing fetal murder (a la Scott Petersen), and those laws are challenged and brought up to the Supreme Court, the Court will have the choice of sticking to a very narrow reading of the Constitution, and upholding the unresricted state's laws as well. Or the Court could utilize the explicit wording in the Preamble to strike down unrestricted abortion, and/or the Court could strike down the fetal murder laws as violating a defendant's equal treatment rights.

Me, I believe the Court should utilize the Preamble.

How will it rule? Dunno. Especially since it will take a couple years for this to get to SCOTUS, and its possible that more sitting justices may depart the bench in the interim.

Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States? Legal abortion will continue, at least for the next decade or two. If Roe is struck down, its highly unlikely that a Federal law authorizing/permitting abortion would pass through Congress. If Roe is overturned based on a State's Rights position, then there will also be less chance of any Federal restrictions on abortion getting passed. The most far reaching, and least likely outcome, is that Roe is overturned based on the Preamble, in which case Federal restrictions are almost a certainty, and legal abortion in America will be limited to life of the mother and possibly rape/incest.

The argument that back alley abortions would become commonplace is a false one, unless the third scenario above comes to pass. The low cost of transportation along with the demographics means that abortion will be almost as accessible as it is today.

If overturned, the political battle will move back into the statehouses, which would probably actually benefit the Democrats on the national scene, because they'll be able to put up national candidates who can stay pro-life, not being forced to flip-flop when they move up from the state level.

I understand that this is an emotional issue for all, but let us be clear. The whole issue of the abortion debate is that these are not babies. They are fetuses. That is the view of a small majority of the people of the US, but more importantly right now, that is the law of the land. Let us keep that in mind.



A bit of a non-point isn't it? Accidental and unwanted preganancy has been an issue... hmmm... well, pretty much for about 10,000 years or so, so prtending the issue is as simple as that is obviously disingenuous.

Besides, if the 'consequence' were to the two people involved, I agree they should deal with it. But the reality is the consequence is borne by the unwanted child after they are born.




This 'activist judge' argument is starting to irritate me. The reality is, an 'activist' judge is any judge who makes a decision you disagree with.

I mean come on here, what do you think Judges are SUPPOSED to do? They interpret laws. people TAKE cases to them to BE interpreted.

Besides, I'm not sure the judiciary can be called 'activist' when they make a decision that the majority of the country agrees with...

Dear Yogurt, you seem to be confused about the topic, no infanticide has been mentioned, (this means termination of an infant), I for one are for this, and have no problem with it, But This has nothing to do with the topic.



Im sorry Yogurt, but clearly you have pesonal issues regarding this, that reflects strongly on your posts. This was about the MOTHER, no BABY exist. Hence, no termination of baby. But perhaps you define "baby" as "sperm cell"? Which put you in your own unique position, which has nothing to do with reality.



Ehm, people have sex, Sex is something natural for humans, We are one of the few animals that enjoy it. If the female part of a heterosexual sexual contact gets pregnant, and wish not to keep it, She SHOULD abort it. Clearly Your definition of "creation of human life" does not equate with what the rest of population holds, so i guess it could be pointless to point this out.

But i hope you will try to understand, your reality is not shared with most of us.

QUOTE

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule?

As we are an overpopulated world already, and do not need more, epsecially not wanted. Abortion should not only be legal, it should be assured for all woman needing it.

QUOTE

Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

Well, the fact that the majority of americans are not very educated, nor very intelligent, it would be good for the World that they do not increase to much.

The fact is that sexual education in the United States is almost nonexistent, And the cause for quite a deal of all these abortion. If americans where educated about birth control, they would have less problems. Gosh, pure blasphemy from my side here, right?


Edited to remove potentially inflammatory mispelling. -Jaime

This is a scary statement that you make, as you possibly could not discern the point at which a fetus turns into a baby.

Is the fetus a baby when it appears outside of the womb? If so, why are late-term abortions illegal in the US? If the baby is just a fetus until it is born, why is it murder for me to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach? Does the baby have to be inside the mother until full-term? Is there a date in which it is/isn't okay?

The funny thing about pro-choice proponents is that there is no definition of a fetus v. baby. Frankly, a fetus at 8 1/2 months can be delivered and live to be a healthy adult. So, is it ok to terminate the pregnancy up until then?

Roe v Wade was a staunch case of Judicial activism, and it has little or nothing to do with the opinion of Americans. From Micheal Kinsley at the Washington Post:


Basically, any time the Supreme Court uses obscure reference to go against the grain of popular opinion without linear coorelation to the Constitution, it is Judicial Activism.

Finally, I believe that the states should have the right to decide what is good for its people. It would be perfectly fine with me to have Vermont or New Hampshire have legal abortions, so long as I had the opportunity to vote to keep Texas abortion free.

I don't expect a Canadian to understand the cultural diversity that our nation possesses. What's good for the Liberal Northeast isn't necessarily good for the Conservative South. I believe that we can stand united on many ideals/principles, but geography often creates some cultural differentiation. Abortion and the overwhelming feeling about such notions definitely contrast based upon where you are in the US.

Apart from the fact this is a horribly sexist statement I was curious how you viewed this restraint on abortion when it comes to rape or sexual abuse?
According to what I have read about the law victims of rape or sexual abuse are also prohibited. Do you again lay blame and responsibility with the female, for not keeping her legs crossed?

I am also not buying the state's rights argument on abortion, the whole idea behind the 14th amend. is that some rights can not be entrusted to the states alone. I personally feel reproduction rights are universal, and the very least we could do, in the land of the free, is recognize them nationally.

I agree with Doclutus' analysis on the SC. I think this will be an interesting insight into how these new guys think, but won't be anything more.

If this is the case, then why are many pro-life proponents against a national vote?

I believe that in this case that many legal professionals saw Roe v. Wade as a mistake and a dark day in the life of the Supreme Court.

Frankly, if reproductive rights are universal, then why haven't we decided the exact point at which a fetus becomes a baby, and when it's acceptable to abort?

If it's ok at week one, why not at week 28?

If reproductive rights are universal, why doesn't this apply to men? Why can a man not decide to keep a baby and divorce himself of the responsibility?

The fact of the matter is that the system only shows defference to women whom chose not to bear the inconvenience of pregnancy. There are multiple options for adoption, etc that don't make aborting the child a necessity.

I'd like to know what pro-choice argument supports when the fetus becomes a baby...

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

I have to agree with Doclotus that the court should uphold the legislation as-is. As for how it will rule, my magic 8-ball is out for repair. However, I don’t think this will get very far; it’s just the religious right flexing their muscle. If, by some strange chance Roe v. Wade is struck down, then we’re headed back to the dark ages where women lose all the gains we’ve made in the last 40 years. Back to being men’s chattel, to cook, clean and breed as required.

I read this the other day and was so incredulous and so angry I knew I couldn’t post anything remotely polite that wouldn’t garner me a strike. I would like to address this narrow-minded statement now.

Why don’t you ask how difficult it is of the young girl who was coerced into having sex with her boyfriend to “prove she loves him”, or the girl who has had no sex education because her parents are in denial about basic human biology and think it's against their "religious beliefs" to address the issue, who hasn’t got a clue what can happen or how, or how about the man who thought “no” really meant “oh, yes, I’m so hot for you, do me!”, or the guy who buys the girl drinks until she's so drunk she can't make a smart decision, or the vile, sick bastards who prey on pubescent children, or the various and sundry sexual predators out there who forcibly rape a woman?

“How difficult is it to keep one’s legs crossed?” assumes the woman is the only one who bears any FAULT. This statement is so ignorant, so hateful, and such a bloomin’ COP OUT, I find myself at a loss for words.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

I think a lower court will rule the law unconstitutional under existing precedents (Roe, Casey, etc.), and the Supreme Court will choose not to hear the state's appeal, this time. Other cases from other states will continue to whittle away at abortion rights, but this law is unlikely to be the one that overturns Roe.

What should the court do? I don't know. I'm basically pro-choice at least regarding pre-viability fetuses. Bill Clinton's formulation "safe, legal and rare" appeals to me. And I agree with Michael Kinsley that Roe v. Wade was a bad bit of jurisprudence. (Thanks for the quote aevans.)

I've got no solutions here. I'm amazed by the statements of some of my fellow pro-choicers...



nighttimer, you've got a real gift for imputing bad motives to your political opponents. It's not possible that the legislators want to protect the unborn, so they must hate women. I'm sure they want to bring back slavery and witch trials, too.



With odds like that, it sounds like criminal malpractice to let a pregnancy go to term!



Such an ugly thread... We have now descended from imputed misogyny to blatant misanthropy.



The mother? Don't you mean the involuntary host of the unwanted clump of cells? The universal use of the word "mother" shows that nobody really believes the "clump of cells" stuff. A fetus that survives the first trimester is very likely to develop into a baby, and there's not any obvious point where it stops being a fetus and becomes a baby. That's why abortion is such a difficult issue.

Just as a side observation I would think that any movement considering abortion infantcide or (murder) could not possible respect choice on abortion even in regards to cases of incest or rape...unless they themselves support infantcide or murder.

Why would a living and right bearing entity (as pro-life people consider it) have any less rights because of the action of it's parents?

I do not understand how allegedly pro-life people can be hypocritical by accepting abortion (or in fact murder by their own rationale) in regards to cases of incest of rape.

If you see what is aborted as a human life then if you do not oppose abortion on all grounds (except if the mothers life is in jeopardy) then I think your a hypocrit because in fact in some cases you support murder.

These people have the most irrational perspective on abortion. Pro-choice people do not see what is aborted as a human life. Pro-life people allegedly do, but why do some support what by their own mentality equates to murder of a human life in regards to rape or incest?

I think abortion is a moral gray area. Most American's in this nation do not Roe V Wade overturned. It is established. It should not be overturned.

DaffyGrl, i seriously get a worring feeling about YOU. I am completely on your side regarding the worth of a rapist, child abuser and so forth, but now you just seem to be a plain "man-hater", or chauvinist.

Whatever we (I) feel about Yoghurt, but i dnt think he was aiming for WOMAN in particular, but people having "sex" in general, clearly he has religious issues, related to his father and mother, which most likely told him "sex is bad", and similar. So dont go TO hard on him, just feel pity *nudge nudge*



If you prefer, you may call it what you want.

I believe the "clump of cells" stuff. Personally, My own opinion, i think abortion should be until your 50+. No question. Let´s say the CHILD born is retarded, is not not better for IT, and the WORLD (have to pay for it), to get rid of it, and its own pain? Indeed i do, i prefer healthy individuals.


But this is not what it is about. I think it is very important for the American (this is about Americans) People to get educated about this. The main problem is that it is to religious-related. We have these these big groups telling everyone that its "wrong" to kill a "baby" (yet OK to bomb and kill Iraqis?), and so forth.

To put it in a suitable frame, ask them if the same applies to a Chimp baby? or an adulty chimp? NO, it does not, they consider HUMANS more "valued", this is biggotry at its highest form, they consider THEMSELVES superior, and THAT, is what it is all about.


Woman AND Men should have the right to chose to keep their FUTURE baby or not, and to this point, I as a man, has NOTHING to say about it. I would grant the female total authority as long as the men does not have to pay for the child, IF, they dont want it. (sign contract on it, simple), why should i have to pay for something i dont want?

Male discrimination, comeone guys, lets WHINE !!!

Now, now, Changeling, that is uncalled for. I am hardly a "man hater". The statement was about "keeping one's legs crossed" and for some odd reason, I assumed that was in regards to the female.

Now, if I'm wrong (for some bizarre reason), please enlighten me how entreating men to "keep their legs crossed" is an effective birth control method?

Its not scary (well, not scary to the majority of Americans) its simple fact codified by law. You may not like that fact, but that does not alter anything.

Besides, the hypocracy of calling me on this when you are doing EXACTLY the ame thing, with no science or any more logic behind it, you are arbitrarily calling it a 'baby' within 5 seconds after conception. Thats MUCH more reasonable.



Except that the popular opinion agrees with the decision. Poll after poll after poll has shown that. Also, the whole line of argumentation about 'judicial' activism is silly. I assume you also disapprove of the judicial activism of desegregating schools for example? Judges interpret the law, people go to them to interpret the law. There is nothing for or against abortion in the constitution, so the judges had to make a call. Stop calling it 'judicial activism' just because you don't agree with it.




The combination of unecessary childish insult and staggering cultural arrogance in this comment is breathtaking. It is beneath you, and beneath contempt. Yes, because NO other country than the US can have cultural diversity right?



You are correct of course, for example, the south didn't want to get rid of slavery. Damn activist northern judges and politcians...



Look, the reality is, if RvW is overturned, likely more than half the country will ban abortion. The idea that 'people can just travel for an abortion' is inane. Tens of thousands of poor people did not even have the money or means to leave before a hurricane hit, I hardly think they will have money or means for this, in particular if you have to travel the whole way out of the south.

This will also put the US as the only first world country on the planet to ban abortions, in a staggering leap backwards for women's rights.

I dont think he meant it THAT literal. Like you know, a metaphor?



Metaphor for gawd sake !! Atleast that was My obvious conclusion. I seriously dont think he was aiming for any sex in particular, but both men and woman. Of course, we can just ask him.

But in all honesty, i dont think he mean to degrade woman in any way.

To get this thread back on track.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

Probably nothing soon.

Challenges to this law will begin in lower federal courts, which will be bound by previous Supreme Court decisions. The last vote on the court was 6-3. Even if Roberts and Alito both vote to sustain the S. Dakota law, that leaves it 5-4. Unless Bush gets another Supreme Court nominee in the next three years or someone changes their mind, then Roe will remain intact.

There is a real possibility that the lower federal courts will knock down the S. Dakota law and the U. S. Supreme Court will decline issuing a writ of certiorari on the matter.

Aren't you forgetting Ireland? Don't they count as first world?

I'll start by saying that I am probably the only member of A.D. who was born
in South Dakota, and who has spent a substantial part of my life there.

The mentality of South Dakotans is quite different than the people of locations
that are more diverse ethnically and socially. I don't think a state like South
Dakota should be the trend-setter here, considering their perspective is
narrow and limited in terms of wide-range social problems and solutions.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before
the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule?

They should overturn S.D.'s ban on abortion and rule it as unconstitutional.

How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in
the United States?

I honestly would like to believe that the only way to rule would be in favor of
protecting a woman's right to have the ultimate say on the issue of abortion.
However, as you can see by the number of male participants in this thread
alone, men (and women) seem to feel their anti-choice views should be
forced on everyone, regardless.

This is not a black and white issue. Abortion isn't always the right choice.
But sometimes it is, and many people are letting their ideals cloud their
vision on this issue.

Actually, this goes back to a point I once made on AD ages ago on a similar thread. My comment was that on the issue of Abortion, put it to a free vote in the US if you must, but only women should be allowed to vote on the issue. Who else would know better? Best way to settle it I can think of...

Of course, the religious right and pro-lifers would never go for it, as they would most assuredly lose...

I actually agree with this notion to putting it to a vote... You may have have a tough time saying only women can vote on it because what happens if a man wants to keep a child but the woman wants to abort. Didn't he help create that child?(Obviously this is not the case in rape and incest).

Also while we are at having national elections we should put other matters to a national vote... Gay Marriage, privatizing social security, and the death penalty.

As you said later, it's a gray area. It's a question of balancing the rights of the mother against the rights of the unborn. And, as others have mentioned, the father has rights and responsibilities as well -- though he also has the option of fleeing the scene, which isn't available to the other two participants.

I don't think Roe was wrongly decided because it framed the question as a balancing of rights. I think it was wrong because its notion of the mother's "Constitutional" rights was based on a penumbra of an emanation of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.



This is a bad joke. Abortion until 50+? (The 203rd trimester?) Granting humans rights that don't apply to other animals is the highest form of bigotry? It's like a cartoon version of Peter Singer's ethics. Or maybe TruthMarch's fixation on hypocrisy...

nighttimer, before Roe vs. Wade was settled, it was already legal to have an abortion for rape, incest, and the life of the mother in Texas (where the case was filed). All Wade vs. Roe did, was allow a woman to murder her baby because it was convenient. Now the woman that started this regrets that decision.

I believe the chances of Roe vs. Wade of getting overturned is pretty good with the addition of Sam Alito. I thought it might be many years before it came before them, but I think Roe vs. Wade will be getting a mulligan very soon.

As previously stated, nothing in the constitution addressed killing babies. Putting an amendment in to allow indiscriminate killing (95% of abortions are used as birth control of babies was activism. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed for all of us - even those who can't speak.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

My personal opinion is that the Court should rule to strike down Roe v. Wade...not abortion. Give the power back to the states to decide their own laws as it is enumerated in the Constitution. I really don't see any way around this. Federal power should not be handed over in any situation that should be given to the individual states. The court will probably uphld the case law as the ramifications of striking it down might be bigger than envisioned.

I just have to put it out there...that I am tired of people who say in defense of abortion "what about those women who are raped or get pregnant because of incest" because while it is a logical issue to bring up...the amount of abortions that occur due to those circumstances are so minute that they are hardly worth mentioning. It in no way justifies the death of at the very least 40 million potential Americans since Roe v. Wade. This number is only of reported abortions which of course were abortions administered by the state. Abortions that occur under a private practice (middle and upper class) are classified data, so the actual amount of abortions in the past 30 some years is unknown.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule?

It should formally overturn Roe v Wade (and I could dream and say it should also overturn the entire fraudulent notion of "substantive due process", but one thing at a time, I guess). Whatever one thinks of abortion, there is simply nothing in the Constitution prohibiting states from enacting these kinds of laws. It's just a hair shy of ridiculous to think that the court all of the sudden "discovered" in 1973 that the Constitution had been prohibiting these laws all this time, despite the fact that no one (and I think I can mean that literally) at the time it was written would have imagined such a thing. Scarcely anyone, even on the Left, probably would have had any idea of it even half a decade before the ruling. Just the sheer chutzpah involved in making a pronouncement like that can only be described as mind-boggling.

How will it rule?

Difficult to say. Assuming Roberts and Alito are on board with this, it's still looking like 5-4 in favor of Roe. But Anthony Kennedy has taken over O'Connor's role as the court's swing vote, and he's slightly to the right of her. If Roberts or the other conservatives on the court can get him to see things the right way, they might be able to pull it off.

Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

If Roe actually is overturned, it wouldn't cause abortion to be illegal nationwide. There are states where it would remain legal, probably plenty of states, given that it would be largely self-defeating for them to try to prevent women from going to other states to get the procedure done. What I think would be much more widespread are common-sense laws, such as parental notification laws that actually work. Daffy Girl was saying something about girls who get pressured by their boyfriends into having sex with them as a way of "proving" that they love them. Well, should a pregnancy arise, those same boyfriends will often pressure them to abort. And a girl who isn't mature enough to resist his sexual advances is likewise usually not going to be mature enough to make such a momentous decision as to whether or not to kill her child. They need parental guidance, particularly in the face of manipulative or even abusive "boyfriends" who have their own selfish agendas. Current law all too often denies girls that parental guidance by creating too many loopholes.



Hmm, another attempt to slander those who disagree with you instead of debating in good faith. Gee, never expected that to happen.

By the way, the law has an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger. Nice try, though.


Although that's not a bad idea at all, it's nonetheless not true that Roe follows inevitably from Griswold's logic. Roe barely even follows from its own logic. Griswold at least makes an unequivocal statement that contraception can not be infringed upon by the state. Roe on the other hand has this Byzantine three-tiered setup that varies according to trimester, to specific situations, and for all I know, the phases of the moon. It's such a textbook case of micro-managing judicial legislation. I don't know how anyone could read that ruling without at least having a fleeting sense of "Where did they read THAT in the Constitution?"


That's about as disingenuous a statement as can be made in this whole debate. Law can't change reality. Some laws in the past defined Jews as less than human, but that didn't make it so.

YOU may not like the fact that anyone defending abortion needs to address the question of the baby's humanity in order to be taken remotely seriously, but that doesn't alter the reality.


Cite the poll that asks people if they think states should be able to set their own abortion laws. Worded any other way, the question becomes a loaded question and therefore of no value scientifically.

Note I actually kept it "gender neutral". I'd submit that copulation, even on the part of a male, would be difficult, at best, with ones legs crossed.
For the record, I do not disfavor abortion when it comes to rapes, sexual abuse, or the life of the mother. I do not support broad based "health" exemptions. Mainly because this could easily be construed to allow exemption for "anxiety" or other maladies. I'm sure you also could find the citations as easily as I about the documented impact to mental health of a woman after an abortion.



Therein lies the rub. It is the determination that it is, or isn't, actually a "right" at all to murder a human. If someone drives over the woman they can be charged with two homicides, but if Dr. Vacuum sucks it's brains out it's OK?

Do you have anything to back that up, DR? I'm 99.9 percent sure you are wrong, especially considering when Roe initially filed her case she claimed to have been raped.

There would be some extreme practical limitations to excluding on those narrow grounds. Suppose the woman didn't report the rape intially and then found out she was pregnant (almost all rapes go unreported)? If you permit her to abort on her word you've opened the door to everyone claiming rape to obtain an abortion. If abortion is repealed in any state, it cannot be practically enforced if cases of rape are omitted (except perhaps in very rare instances when it is reported).

Of course that is just the beginning of the ramifications to an abortion ban, which would be irresponsibly myopic not to take into consideration. I'm with Doc and BOF on this. The court will respect the stare decisis in the matter, Roe vs. Wade (if it even goes through the lower federal courts, which I doubt). There are simply too many consequences to doing otherwise.

That comment wasn't at all gender neutral. And guess what, neither is abortion.



Well I disagree, immensely. I think if the mother is a drug abuser, she has the right for health reasons to abort. But maybe you think it is a kinder gentler world to allow a baby to come to full term full of smack.
I also think if the mother is mentally ill again health reasons completely dictate. I think there are many legitimate health concerns that should be considered.

But these exemptions for health or death or for rape still take the choice away from the woman. They still bar her from her reproduction rights and I happen to feel in the first trimester there should be no restrictions of any kind for adults. I do support parental notification laws.

You did not address my comments on state's rights at all. But to answer your question, intent is kind of important and well recognized in all our laws.

I never said I was against a national vote. This isn't really how we handle things here in America tho is it.

Well being that I have been pregnant and I am sure any other woman here will agree, the difference between week 1 and week 28 is huge. I think context is completely acceptable in considering abortion. I am not at all in favor of non-restrictive late term abortion. I think it really is something that should only be used in the most extreme cases. So yeah I think as a pro-choice proponent that it is perfectly acceptable to take a "evolving sense of decency" towards reproduction rights.



Reproductive rights do apply to men. I would never support forced sterilization on men, but at the same time I would not legally over extend men's reproductive rights to something they are not biologically.

Men can divorce themselves from responsibility..biologically they have none. Legally they can opt for adoption, sign over parental rights etc.

I personally don't know any, but I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of smack babies" who weren't aborted that would argue this with you



I submit that when a woman and a "Doctor" voluntarily engage in destruction of a human the "intent" is pretty self-evident.

Here is a link to the ruling. Specifically, abortion was already allowed in the majority of states wheree the woman's life was in danger:


According to Planned Parenthood, nearly all states allowed outlawed abortion except :


My problem with the rape qualifer, is we allow someone to kill thier baby based on thier word only. For example, "Roe" - Norma McCorvey - claimed she was raped to get an abortion. She later admitted she lied.

But for every rape or incest case, 98 abortions are done as birth control. I will make no apologies for having a problem with that.

I know that some of the pro-life folks who accept abortion in cases of rape and/or incest do so for purely pragmatic political reasons. I am not one of them.

The Consitutional basis for overturning Roe v. Wade:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

That gives the unborn, aka future generations, standing. A better example of hypocrisy would be every single pro-choicer who complains about the deficit because it will bankrupt our children, who argues for environmental causes because we must save the Earth for our children, etc. Arguing that we all should sacrifice some present benefit for somebody else's nebulous future children that the vast majority of us will have no responsibility in bringing into this world, yet turn around and argue that the one person with the most responsibility (setting aside rape and some incest) can terminate a pregnancy because it would demand sacrifice of her present benefits, that is a hypocritical position.

When this law passes (as seems almost certain) and it is brought before the Supreme Court (also almost inevitable), how should the court rule? How will it rule? Either way, what are the implications for abortion in the United States?

Assuming the law passes (and my morning paper says similar laws are in the works in several states including mine) the court should rule to uphold Roe v. Wade if it does not want a disastrous political fallout. Of course I come to this with the assumption that the Supreme Court, as part of our federal government, does think politically in taking cases and making decisions.

Stare decisis and all of the arguments that a modern conservative would accept law with precedents established and the loud conservative arguments that Roe v. Wade was not at stake in the nomination process in the past twelve months for two separate USSC justices will make these nominations look like stealth nominations that will not behave as they were advertised.

I felt the implications were that Roe v. Wade would have some limitations placed on it in the next several years that included things like parental consent. Now I am afraid that Roe v. Wade is being pursued lock stock and barrel. People who held there tongues around here in the fray over these nominations seem to come out guns blazing about overturning Roe v. Wade now. I think that this trend will be more aggressive in the public domain and this will turn into a major issue in the elections of 2006 with an attempt to capture the momentum of having anti-gay marriage votes on the ballot in 2004.

I fear that this issue may indeed be passed back to the states. Funny, though, that this was not the argument when the nominees were being debated this past year.

Roe vs Wade was based on Griswold. Griswold was based upon the premise that the Bill of Rights protects many rights but does not say anything about privacy rights but it is hard to believe they did not want there to be privacy rights considering all the rights that were mentioned so, we the court, will will declare what those privacy rights are. It is aggressive interpretation of the constitution. It would be preferable to have these blanks in the constitution defined by amendment.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I have read several mentions about the new state laws containing exemptions for the life of the mother. I have not seen anyone suggest there will be exemptions for the health of the mother. Can you see it Constitutional to have a state law which does not contain an exemption for the health of the mother? I can not. It would be prejudicial for government to declare the health of the fetus to be greater than that of the mother. I do not think the Supreme Court would find that this is a legitimate vested interest of a state.

I do think the South Dakota law could be ruled constitutional even without Roe vs. Wade. I doubt it will get to the Supreme Court as it is not introducing any new argument to current constitutional law. But, I do expect there will be a case unless this country gets it right and holds a constitutional congress to define privacy and adopts a series of amendments, a Bill of Privacy Rights.

Oh absolutely, Yogurt. This isn't going to be a pro-life vs pro-choice debate. But both yours and my remarks seem to have invoked some passionate responses. However when you say "one needs to evaluate the consequences as part of the decision process" I sure hope you're including men in the process, because that crack about how difficult it is to keep one's legs crossed seems like its directed primarily toward women.

It takes two to make a baby, but only one to give birth. I am biased toward giving the maximum of options to the women that carry the children, and not the men who provide the sperm.

There is an hostility to the rights of women to make their own biological decisions that teeters on the edge of outright misogyny. And there are some men (and women) whom in their denoucement of abortion go right over that edge.



I wouldn't call it a "gift," Jobius, as I would call it an unwillingness to see this pernicious piece of legislation as an anti-choice, anti-woman's health bill. I didn't say the South Dakota legislature hate women. I'm sure some of them are probably married to women and may even have produced a daughter or two. But let's not tap dance around the ramifications of this bill shall we?

If this bill is signed into law and enforced it means any woman in South Dakota who is unlucky enough to be raped, a victim of incest or would die by delivering a baby would have to suck it up and take her chances rather than receive an abortion.

That is an extremist position. Your references to slavery and witch trials aside, I'm not "imputing bad motives to my political opponents" as much as I'm accurately characterizing what this legislation is and what it will do to women. Interpret that anyway it pleases you to do so.



Just because The Constitution doesn't explicitly say so Dayton Rocker does not mean the right doesn't exist. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was not guaranteed for all of us. It was guaranteed for White, male, property owners and not until the Constitution was amended were women and non-Whites legally guaranteed to join in on the fun.

I have never bought the line that women "murder" their babies out of convenience. That suggests women are so shallow they'd extinguish a life because they don't want to gain weight or suffer from morning sickness. Once again, this ISN'T a abortion debate. Abortion is legal in America and it should stay that way.



So if a woman gets knocked up by a rapist or her own father or brother, then she should start shopping for blue or pink baby clothes? That's perverse.

If you don't think there aren't going to be doctors in South Dakota who won't be willing to perform an abortion under any circumstances because they'll be afraid that some cop or politician might question if the woman's life is in danger or not, you're kidding youself, Blackstone. A South Dakota doctor who has to perform an emergency abortion on a woman bleeding out shouldn't have to consult with his attorney first.

The Supreme Court recently decided in a New Hampshire case on parental notification that didn't have a provision permitting an abortion exception for a woman's health did not invalidate the entire law. Here in Ohio, our predominantly Republican legislature will be taking up HB 228 that makes NO exceptions for abortion.

The bill, if passed Prohibits abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy without exception. Prohibits state funds from being used to pay for insurance coverage of abortions.

These types of poison pill bills are be taken up in statehouses all over the country. There is NO "good faith" being exhibited by the anti-abortion activists. They are simply spoiling for a fight over Roe vs Wade and determined to have the issue fought out in the Supreme Court.

For example:

When State Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr. introduced a bill banning all abortion in Ohio, he knew it violated Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion. That's exactly why he did it.

By introducing House Bill 228 to the Ohio House of Representatives April 28, Brinkman (R-Mount Lookout) joins pro-life lawmakers across the country who are pushing anti-abortion legislation. Their hope is that at least one bill will end up in front of the Supreme Court in three or four years, by which time they expect President Bush to have appointed at least one justice sympathetic to their cause.

The movement isn't terribly organized, but there's a reason for differences between his sweeping bill and, say, South Dakota's more tempered one, according to Brinkman.

"If we all passed the same (bill), then when they knocked out one of us they'd knock us all out," he says. "So it's our opportunity to put different ones across the plate, hoping that one will be the magic bullet."

http://www.citybeat.com/2005-05-11/news.shtml

The blatant hypocrisy from pandering opportunitists like Brinkman comes shining through when he dismisses bills with provisions allowing abortions when a woman's life is endangered.

Based on the political leanings of their governors and legislatures, Ohio and 18 other states would quickly ban abortion, says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

In only 13 states would abortion probably not be at risk, she says.

Anticipating that, Brinkman's bill also prohibits transporting a woman across county or state lines for an abortion. Doing so would carry the same charge as an in-state abortion: first- or second-degree felonies punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Only when it's medically necessary to save a woman's life would Brinkman's bill allow abortion. But that never happens anyway, he says.

"It's a fallacy perpetrated by the Planned Parenthood people," Brinkman says. "My doctors tell me they're never in that type of dilemma."

HIS doctors? Oh, does he mean the ones that write the prescriptions for Viagra but not for R.U. 486?

It is transparent that in South Dakota and elsewhere, the anti-abortion zealots are only interested in forcing a Constitutional fight. That, and hoping John Paul Stevens or one of the moderate Supreme Court justices come down with bird flu.

I was waiting a bit before responding to this. I share your distaste with the way that statement was phrased. However, in your response you touched on something that I think is important in abortion law. With few exceptions, pro-choice advocates are against parental notification laws.


As you noted, men can 'buy girls drinks' and otherwise prey on underage girls, and sadly this often results in pregnancy. Without parental notification laws, the predator can take the girl to get an abortion, no questions asked, risking the girl's health to hide his evil ways. I have a real problem with this. And it might sound like a tiny minority of cases, but really it's not.
human events (avert your eyes, conservative commentary)


I've heard the tapes referenced and they are chilling, those young girls being told to cover their story and get an abortion.

Anyway, apologies for straying a bit from the South Dakota case, but the anti-notification stance of the 'pro-choice' side makes me wonder who they are protecting. There are, by a factor of 1000's, more underage girls impregnated by lecherous over-18's, than there are rapes, incests, or risks to the mother's life. Why don't those pro-choice people want parents to know, but want to keep 'choice' legal in all instances? I share DaytonRocker's disdain for abortion-as-birth-control, and it seems that's what we're fighting for here.

Parental notification sounds reasonable to me. As the father of an 11-yr-old girl, if she were to get pregnant, I'd like to know about it before some creep shuttled her off for an abortion.

I agree with you carlitoswhey that it is far more likely for a woman to be impregnanted by some guy trying to carve another notch on his bedpost than a rapist lying in wait in the bushes or a drunken stepfather putting the moves on his stepdaugther while mom's out of the house. But it does happen and there is no way in hell I can support any law that would force a woman to unwillingly give birth to a child conceived from incest or rape.

Others have spoken of the immorality of abortion. What is moral about laws that force childbirth? That is victimizing the woman twice.

There is a middle ground between your position and mine, CW. Reasonable people should be able to reach an accomodation.

I don't know which "advertisements" you were listening to, but the nominees themselves made it very clear that they did not consider stare decisis to be a hard-and-fast commandment.


I can't say how true that observation is in general; I can only speak for myself. I myself did not "hold my tongue". I'm on record on the Alito thread as saying that he probably would vote to overturn Roe if it came before him as a Supreme Court justice, and I considered that one of the reasons to support his confirmation.


Sorry, that's just totally unrealistic. Patients die on the operating table all the time. Unless there's some serious indication of hanky-panky going on, when does a doctor ever get criminally charged for it? It's no different with pregnant women. Any doctor who takes his Hippocratic oath seriously will do everything he can to save both mother and child. If he's unable to, he's unable to. It's tragic, but certainly not unusual.


Fought out OF the Supreme Court might be a better choice of words. The idea is to get it out of the courts and into the legislatures and public forum where it belongs, and where it can once again be debated in good faith, instead of being imposed high-handedly.

Now, first you say, in regards to Mr. Brinkman's HB 228:


You follow it up with:


And then finally you say:


So which is it? Does his bill contain exceptions for the life of the mother or doesn't it?

This is a very exciting time. Finally our country may stop the slaughter of its children. I hope that when this bill is signed by the Governor and then placed before the Supreme Court, that the court will rule in favor of this wouldbe-law. In fact I believe that the court will rule in favor of this law. I completely support this law, and it is not wrong that this law would ban abortions in the case of rape or incest. A child should not be punished because of the sin of others.

If you correctly read the lines I quoted from Cincinnati CityBeat writer Stephanie Dunlap, Blackstone, the meaning of Rep. Brinkman's bill becomes clear. You've blurred the lines between what I posted and Dunlap wrote.

Brinkman bans all abortions in Ohio except for a provision when a woman's life in danger. However his remark (which you didn't mention), "It's a fallacy perpetrated by the Planned Parenthood people," Brinkman says. "My doctors tell me they're never in that type of dilemma," indicates he has no sincere interest in any threat to the health of the woman.

So technically speaking, YES, there is a caveat in Brinkman's bill for allowing abortion if the woman's life is at risk, but NO there isn't really because Brinkman implies it occurs so infrequently as to be unnecessary.

Which is as good an example of how low these clowns will stoop to strip women of their biological rights.

It is still a repulsive notion to me that someone could make the claim that a woman who is a victim of rape and/or incest should give birth to a baby because "the child should not be punished for the sins of others." Neither should the woman be punished for the sins of others.

Why should a victim of violence have to go through the difficult burden of giving birth to a child she had no choice in creating? What if the child is born with mental, physical or congenital impairments? Should the mama-to-be be tasked with that burden as well? Or maybe she should just dump the hapless child into the adoption system and hope that some kindly soul will take pity?

Parental notification laws are a double-edged sword, no doubt. Yeah, I would want to be notified if I had a child who ended up pregnant. But the larger picture would be that girls would be less likely to go to Planned Parenthood, or other avenues of help, if they knew their parents would be told. Realistically, parents have to find out from their daughters, and that speaks to a different issue entirely.




It is against the law for an agency to know a crime has occurred to a minor and not report it. Nothnig to do with parental conset laws; if this allegation is true, the said workers at Planned Parenthood are doing something illegally (at least as far as the alws are in CA).

Interesting, I wasn't aware that comments made by an individual legislator had any legal standing in how a law is applied by the enforcing agencies. Maybe it's just an Ohio thing. Or maybe your attempt at demonizing the opposition has more bark than bite to it.


How likely are they to find out from their daughters, though, if there's such an easy way for them to get abortions without their knowledge? Remember that cutting them off from their parents makes them prey to manipulative and abusive "boyfriends". Which is worse? At the time they get the abortion, they're not necessarily thinking of the emotional pain that often comes from killing one's own flesh and blood, and once it happens, it's too late to do anything about it. That can really scar a person. They need to have their parents' guidance.

What about the child's biological rights? Again while i contend that brining up cases of rape or incest are logical arguments to make...the amount of cases that fit those circumstances are so minute that it nowhere near justifies 1.3 million *known* abortions that occur every year. Even if exceptions were made for rape, incest and the health of the mother or child...approximately 97% of *known* abortions occur because to put it in simplest terms, the child is an inconvenience.

Does anyone find it weird that in certain states it is illegal for a school to administer tylenol to a child without a parent's knowledge but if that same child wants to have an abortion that the school is required to transport her to a clinic in secret during school hours? Just seems that our society is confused about where responsibility should fall. Parents are technically responsible for their child until they reach the age of 18 and denying them their rights as a parent. The government is claiming that they are protecting the rights of the child but again it is the parent's responsibility...not the government's.