South Dakota Seeks To Ban Abortion
Posted on February 25, 2006
Hat tip: The Liberal Wrong Wing
Via Life News
Lawmakers in the South Dakota legislature on Friday issued a final vote approving a bill to ban virtually all abortions in the state. Governor Mike Rounds, who is pro-life, has said he is “inclined” to sign the legislation.
“I’ve indicated I’m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives. If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law,” Rounds said.When the state legislature previously sent him the abortion ban, Rounds issued a veto because the measure would have wiped all of South Dakota’s pro-life laws off the books while the legislation was tied up in court.
Rounds has indicated that staff attorneys are checking to make sure that isn’t the case this time and that there aren’t any other unintended problems that could occur.
Both sides expect Rounds to sign the bill and lawmakers say the problems he cited last time have been corrected.
Once the bill is signed, Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, which runs the only abortion business in the state, has said her group will immediately sue.
“There will be a small time lag as we prepare to take this to the court and ask for an injunction to prevent it from ever taking effect in South Dakota,” she has said.
Lawmakers are preparing for the long court battle and are working on organizing a legal defense fund. They say an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to help defend the bill and Rounds says pro-life citizens have already come to his office with donations to support it.
We can also expect the ACLU to challenge this as well. It is a direct challenge to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. The new make-up of the Supreme Court could result in a 5-4 decision to overturn Roe. Some people think that South Dakota is jumping the gun on this issue, and that the Court will follow judicial precedent.
Judicial precedent would come into play if the abortion ban law was only to receive judical review. From that, because of Roe, the bill would be unconstitutional. But, if those who file suit regarding the issue, ask for review or Roe, then I would consider overturning Roe.
Firstly, issues of social divide should, Constitutionally, be issues for the states. Roe vs Wade violated that very essential Constitutional foundation. Our country remains united because of state’s rights. The South and the North do not agree on abortion or any social issue for that matter. State’s rights solves this problem. The Founding Fathers understood this concept. The Justices who decide Roe did not.
Secondly, Roe is based on this idea that Americans have a guaranteed, well defined, right to privacy. I think Americans have some rights to privacy. But Americans also have a right to life. And the Constitution is clear in its intentions to foster jurisdiction over all Americans, including future generations of American citizens. Apparantly the Roe Justices overlooked the preamble of the Constitution. They missed the “to ourselves and our posterity” part. Shame on them.
Indeed, this challenge will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Of course, Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned and this controversial issue should be given back to the States. We will soon see a revigorated fight on this issue. South Dakota made a bold move with this, and many Democrats were on board with it. This is why so many liberals do not believe in democracy, because they lose with it. That is why they are so guarded, when it comes to the Courts.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
