South Dakota’s governor has signed a ban on abortions in the state. Don’t celebrate too much just yet. The victory is more theoretical than practical as it stands. That’s because a lawsuit will be filed immediately asking the courts to declare the law unconstitutional under the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. But the larger point is that this is setting up another opportunity for the US Supreme Court to finally undo the atrocity that was put in place in 1973 with that original decision and then propped up again by the equally ridiculous decision in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
It’s also interesting that the pro-life advocates behind the law have been subject to unremitting harassment and hate crimes, yet we’ve seen no breathless reports in the national media about the “chilling effect” on free speech and the lawlessness that leads to violence. I guess it’s only news when it’s pro-abortion people being threatened.
Technorati Tags: abortion, lawsuits, supreme-court
While I want Roe to go away as much as the next guy, I’m not sure this is the time to be doing this. Most likely we do not yet have enough votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, even assuming both Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn it. It is not entirely clear how these guys will rule on such a case.
The key here is Justice Kennedy. He is on record as supporting Roe. I hope he’s had a change of heart/mind but I really doubt it. Maybe the improved science (both on the fetal development and harm to women fronts) since Roe will win him over.
I’m afraid though, that the result of this is most likely going to be more precident FOR Roe when this law gets ruled as unconstitutional. And an reinvigorated frenzy by the pro-abortion zealots when such a decision makes it crystal clear that the next Justice will be the one to turn the tables. The best I’m afraid we can hope for is a well written decent by Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia.
My guess is that it will be quite a while before this gets before the Supreme Court, and possibly after Stevens is replaced. His replacement will cause a frenzy regardless, especially after Bush just got to put two of his own on the court.
I am inclined to think that this law, and others like it wending their way through legislatures in other conservative states are premature attempts to exploit a perceived advantage that may not really exist. In the end, forcing a test-case to the court now may do more harm than good to the pro-life cause by resulting in the establishment of yet another pro-abortion precedent to bolster the already considerable force of the principle of “stare decisis.” In my opinion, having the cases which develop out of these laws in the offing may well motivate Justice Stevens to cling to his place on the bench with at least as much tenacity as Chief Justice Rhenquist did to his. In general, then, I am not optimistic.
South Dakota has been working on this abortion ban for years, and has nothing to do with recent appointments.
A strong point of interest that many are missing. The bill was spearheaded by South Dakota democrat Sen Julie Bartling.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not in good health and she literlly fell asleep during a hearing recently.
Stevens or Kennedy is not the right focus of analysis. When Ginsberg goes away the whole world changes.